Monday, September 19, 2011

What Michele Bachmann and Charles Darwin (Don’t) Have in Common

In a recent political debate presidential hopeful Michele Bachmann raised the topic of vaccines. She accused Rick Perry, governor of Texas, of abusing his authority when he imposed vaccine mandates. What does this have to do with Charles Darwin? Darwin was also concerned about vaccines. But the so-called Father of Modern Biology had a different sort of concern. Darwin erroneously worried that vaccines preserved the lives of those who otherwise would have succumbed. “Thus,” warned the Sage of Kent, “the weak members of civilized societies propagate their kind.” And that, he ominously concluded:

must be highly injurious to the race of man. It is surprising how soon a want of care, or care wrongly directed, leads to the degeneration of a domestic race; but excepting in the case of man himself, hardly any one is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed.

The aid which we feel impelled to give to the helpless is mainly an incidental result of the instinct of sympathy, which was originally acquired as part of the social instincts, but subsequently rendered, in the manner previously indicated, more tender and more widely diffused. Nor could we check our sympathy, even at the urging of hard reason, without deterioration in the noblest part of our nature. The surgeon may harden himself whilst performing an operation, for he knows that he is acting for the good of his patient; but if we were intentionally to neglect the weak and helpless, it could only be for a contingent benefit, with an overwhelming present evil. Hence we must bear without complaining the undoubtedly bad effects of the weak surviving and propagating their kind; but there appears to be at least one check in steady action, namely the weaker and inferior members of society not marrying so freely as the sound; and this check might be indefinitely increased, though this is more to be hoped for than expected, by the weak in body or mind refraining from marriage.

It is little wonder that fifteen years later Nietzsche proclaimed that “The invalids are the great danger to humanity, not the evil men.” The rest, as they say, is history. Let’s hope it stays that way.

447 comments:

Wow CH, you don't have a single scruple left in your whole body. Why don't you just make up some quotes whole cloth, save you the trouble of doing all the dishonest manipulative quote mining?

Here is the whole Darwin quote

"With savages, the weak in body or mind are soon eliminated; and those that survive commonly exhibit a vigorous state of health. We civilized men, on the other hand, do our utmost to check the process of elimination. We build asylums for the imbecile, the maimed and the sick; we institute poor-laws; and our medical men exert their utmost skill to save the life of every one to the last moment. There is reason to believe that vaccination has preserved thousands, who from a weak constitution would formerly have succumbed to small-pox. Thus the weak members of civilized societies propagate their kind. No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man. It is surprising how soon a want of care, or care wrongly directed, leads to the degeneration of a domestic race; but excepting in the case of man himself, hardly anyone is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed.

The aid which we feel impelled to give to the helpless is mainly an incidental result of the instinct of sympathy, which was originally acquired as part of the social instincts, but subsequently rendered, in the manner previously indicated, more tender and more widely diffused. Nor could we check our sympathy, even at the urging of hard reason, without deterioration in the noblest part of our nature. The surgeon may harden himself whilst performing an operation, for he knows that he is acting for the good of his patient; but if we were intentionally to neglect the weak and helpless, it could only be for a contingent benefit, with an overwhelming present evil. Hence we must bear without complaining the undoubtedly bad effects of the weak surviving and propagating their kind; but there appears to be at least one check in steady action, namely the weaker and inferior members of society not marrying so freely as the sound; and this check might be indefinitely increased, though this is more to be hoped for than expected, by the weak in body or mind refraining from marriage"

So Darwin is not advocating eugenics as you not so subtly imply He is actually explaining the opposite - that humans are noble and should care for their sick and weak.

Cornelius, you seem to have forgotten the vast majority of that quote:

"With savages, the weak in body or mind are soon eliminated; and those that survive commonly exhibit a vigorous state of health. We civilized men, on the other hand, do our utmost to check the process of elimination. We build asylums for the imbecile, the maimed and the sick; we institute poor-laws; and our medical men exert their utmost skill to save the life of every one to the last moment. There is reason to believe that vaccination has preserved thousands, who from a weak constitution would formerly have succumbed to small-pox. Thus the weak members of civilized societies propagate their kind. No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man. It is surprising how soon a want of care, or care wrongly directed, leads to the degeneration of a domestic race; but excepting in the case of man himself, hardly anyone is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed.

The aid which we feel impelled to give to the helpless is mainly an incidental result of the instinct of sympathy, which was originally acquired as part of the social instincts, but subsequently rendered, in the manner previously indicated, more tender and more widely diffused. Nor could we check our sympathy, even at the urging of hard reason, without deterioration in the noblest part of our nature. The surgeon may harden himself whilst performing an operation, for he knows that he is acting for the good of his patient; but if we were intentionally to neglect the weak and helpless, it could only be for a contingent benefit, with an overwhelming present evil. Hence we must bear without complaining the undoubtedly bad effects of the weak surviving and propagating their kind; but there appears to be at least one check in steady action, namely the weaker and inferior members of society not marrying so freely as the sound; and this check might be indefinitely increased, though this is more to be hoped for than expected, by the weak in body or mind refraining from marriage."

Distasteful as we may find it, the point Cornelius makes is at least true. Humans ARE very compassionate creatures. We do care for the weak, the sick and infirm, and by doing so, allow them to survive, and shield our race as a whole against the worst rigours of natural selection.

Cornelius' problem is that he is deriving an OUGHT from an IS. Just because we humans DO shield the weaker of our species, doesn't say anything at all about whether we SHOULD. I, for one, am glad we do. I would hate to live in a society which prizes only the survival of the fittest - that is, those unable to fend for themselves are left to die.

But that says nothing about whether ToE is TRUE. I am only saying we should not adopt it as a basis for morality. Which is fine, because no-one is advocating that.

"The rest, as they say, is history. Let’s hope it stays that way."====

To be honest, mankind's history stinks and continuing along the same failed dirt road with all it's potholes, washboards and boulder slides will only lead humans to a "Soylent Green" outcome. The run down reststops, disappointing Novelty Stands and dilapidated filling stations along the way have only offered a mirrage of relief. Let's pray for divine intervention sooner than later.

Thorton: "So Darwin is not advocating eugenics as you not so subtly imply He is actually explaining the opposite - that humans are noble and should care for their sick and weak."

Of course he was advocating for eugenics:

the weaker and inferior members of society not marrying so freely as the sound

LOL! You just can't stop yourself from quote-mining, can you? Darwin wasn't proposing any state-mandated laws or regulations to keep people from marrying. He said just the opposite. Read the context again:

"Hence we must bear without complaining the undoubtedly bad effects of the weak surviving and propagating their kind; but there appears to be at least one check in steady action, namely the weaker and inferior members of society not marrying so freely as the sound; and this check might be indefinitely increased, though this is more to be hoped for than expected, by the weak in body or mind refraining from marriage"

He only suggested, not demanded, that weak or infirm people voluntarily not marry.

Most people consider quote-mining a form of lying CH. Why do you resort to quote-mining so often?

Unlike the "savages", we do not eliminate those that are weak in body and mind.

The check he is referring to is not imposed externally, but an observation that those that are weak are not "free" to marry as often as the sound as they are themselves weak. This is an observation, not a prescription.

Finally, we see that it is the weak themselves who he speaks of refraining from marriage going forward, not others imposing this upon them.

However, even if Darwin tortured puppies and worshiped Satan, this would be irrelevant to the merit of the theory itself. Nor do we even need to appeal to the "survival of the fittest", as we better understand Darwins on theory than he did. Genes are biological replicators, which can replicate themselves even at the expense of making their organism significantly less fit.

Darwin was writing in the 1860s when he saw many people suffer through these ailments without the benefit of health care. It is clear from the bulk of Darwin's writings that he had great compassion for people of all shapes and sizes.

"However, even if Darwin tortured puppies and worshiped Satan, this would be irrelevant to the merit of the theory itself."

The hypocrisy is palpable! If a catholic priest was to torture puppies and worship Satan all of Christianity and Christ himself would be held accountable. The double standard you display is deplorable.

As for others here who say the whole quote indicates Darwin did not support eugenics, I would would suggest you take a basic course on reading comprehension.

Gerry, why did you so carefully misread Scott? He is saying that the theory exists as objective theory irrespective of Darwin, himself. That is true of all kinds of theories and discoveries. We have Francis Crick to thank for the uncovering of DNA, even though some of Crick's ideas on eugenics are whackadoodle. Science is full of those kinds of things.

It's important to draw a distinction between eugenics, which usually refers to coercive laws such as sterilization of the "unfit," and genetic counseling, which provides people the scientific knowledge and tools to make sensible reproductive choices. For instance, it is certainly reasonable for a couple, each with a recessive gene for sickle cell, to consider adoption rather than natural children.

I could argue the case for many things - humanitarianism, for instance. The law. Simple compassion.

But I wouldn't argue we should make any particular scientific theory the basis for morality, and I'm not aware of anyone else making that claim either. So quite what Cornleius is getting at is hard to see.

"And if ToE is TRUE is there room to see charity actions as good for the mankind?"

Well yes. Though the law of the wild might boil down to 'the survival of the fittest', co-operation is a common and efficient survival strategy. A team, working in collaboration, may achieve more than the individuals who make it up could achieve alone. The classic example is a pack of lions working together to bring down an animal none of them could ever kill alone. Even though they must share the food, they may well end up with more than if they hunted seperately.

Ritchie:"I could argue the case for many things - humanitarianism, for instance. The law. Simple compassion."

But if ToE is TRUE, humanitarism or compassion are only adaptative forms of the Natural selection, then again you have to start with ToE to base morality if it exists.

"Well yes. Though the law of the wild might boil down to 'the survival of the fittest', co-operation is a common and efficient survival strategy. A team, working in collaboration, may achieve more than the individuals who make it up could achieve alone. The classic example is a pack of lions working together to bring down an animal none of them could ever kill alone. Even though they must share the food, they may well end up with more than if they hunted seperately."

What you describe is not charity, it is just team working, win-win situation, I am talking about a winner wasting time keeping alive a looser.

"But if ToE is TRUE, humanitarism or compassion are only adaptative forms of the Natural selection, then again you have to start with ToE to base morality if it exists."

Not really sure what you're saying here, tbh. Humanitarianism and compassion are not forms of natural selection...

"What you describe is not charity, it is just team working, win-win situation, I am talking about a winner wasting time keeping alive a looser."

But if you live in a communal society, the expectation of reciprocity remains, though more abstractly. If everyone pulls together and helps out the sick and weak as and when needed, then you too will be looked after when you are sick and weak.

I didn't misread him at all. I agree with his statement that Darwin's personal actions should be kept separate from his science. What I object to is the double standard which is applied. Do you disagree with the fact that if a Catholic priest tortured puppies all of Christianity would be ridiculed and maligned as a result? This would occur even thought it's obvious that Christianity in no way condones such actions. If you do disagree, read many of the comments on this blog which make references to Christianity, or any religion for that matter, and you will see my comment is correct.

Evolutionists are quick to separate Darwin and the the Theory from any abuses carried out by those claiming to be acting in concert with Darwinian evolution. However, these same people will vehemently attack an entire religious philosophy if a single member of that religion missteps in any way.

"But if you live in a communal society, the expectation of reciprocity remains, though more abstractly. If everyone pulls together and helps out the sick and weak as and when needed, then you too will be looked after when you are sick and weak."

Ok, then charity is a survival strategy, but as we know that, shouldn´t aplly it more wise manner according to natural selection.

I think you misunderstand. Humanitarianism is a philosophy. And compassion is an emotion. That's all.

It's true that I believe our brains (and, perhaps indirectly, our emotions and thoughts) have been shaped by evolution. But they have been shaped by other things as well. Gravity has played its part. Should we look for morality in the theory of gravity? The laws of motion have helped to shape everything too. Should we look for morality in them? Brains are essentially chemical. Is morality to be found in chemistry?

"Ok, then charity is a survival strategy, but as we know that, shouldn´t aplly it more wise manner according to natural selection."

I don't see why. It's not as if the human race is suffering because 'inferior genes' are causing us to lose out in some competition for survival. How would it benefit us genetically to be more Spartan with our charity?

Ritchie:"It's true that I believe our brains (and, perhaps indirectly, our emotions and thoughts) have been shaped by evolution. But they have been shaped by other things as well. Gravity has played its part. Should we look for morality in the theory of gravity? The laws of motion have helped to shape everything too. Should we look for morality in them? Brains are essentially chemical. Is morality to be found in chemistry?"

Then on what we are going to base our morality?

"I don't see why. It's not as if the human race is suffering because 'inferior genes' are causing us to lose out in some competition for survival. How would it benefit us genetically to be more Spartan with our charity?"

And why not? Maybe we can significantly improve the wealth of minkind in shorter times using NS.Is there any inmorality on try that?

Blas: What you describe is not charity, it is just team working, win-win situation, I am talking about a winner wasting time keeping alive a looser.

Game theory can show that altruism can be a competitive advantage even if there is only a marginal chance of ever meeting the person again. Do someone a favor today, and they may save your life tomorrow.

Humans help one another because it is in their natures. It is in their nature because it provides an overall evolutionary advantage.

"Humanitarism and compassion are product of RM and NS, so you are basing morality in natural selection or I´m missing something?"

I think that's an extremely tenuous connection. The brain is indeed the product of RM and NS, but that doesn't mean that every idea, every emotion, every thought and every feeling is based on ToE being morally sound.

If a person is being mugged, basic compassion tells me that's wrong. I can empathise with the mugged person and feel an urge to help. That isn't borne out of logic which takes evolution as a moral ideal.

"Maybe it is because you have poor genes, who has better genes than you maybe wants to leave in a better world without you. Is there any reason he shouldn´t try?"

What I object to is the double standard which is applied. Do you disagree with the fact that if a Catholic priest tortured puppies all of Christianity would be ridiculed and maligned as a result?

I disagree Gerry. I think you're pulling that right out of your butt.

Give us some real world examples of organized attempts to discredit all of Christianity because of the immoral actions of individual priests. There have been any number of Catholic priest child molesters in the news. Pick a few cases and show us the public outcry to reject Christianity and toss all of its teachings as a direct result.

It's astounding that you could post an article accusing a 19th century naturalist of endorsing eugenics as if that had any bearing whatsoever on a modern aspect of biology, and then make such a statement to someone who points out the fact that you misunderstood what the 19th century naturalist was even saying.

The lack of self-awareness required to type out those five words is staggering.

It's astounding that you could post an article accusing a 19th century naturalist of endorsing eugenics as if that had any bearing whatsoever on a modern aspect of biology, and then make such a statement to someone who points out the fact that you misunderstood what the 19th century naturalist was even saying.

The lack of self-awareness required to type out those five words is staggering

To paraphrase Upton Sinclair:

"It is difficult to get a Creationist to understand something, when his salary from the Discovery Institute depends upon his not understanding it!"

This would occur even thought it's obvious that Christianity in no way condones such actions.

Well, evolutionary theory doesn't mandate our morals. Catholicism supposedly does. Shouldn't clergy be expected to be more moral than mere scientists? Reading comments from people such as Blas, you would certainly think so.

But more importantly, the catholic church HAS condoned such actions (e.g. pedophilia) by the simple act of covering them up and letting offenders keep on doing their dirty deeds.

Blas: But if ToE is TRUE, humanitarism or compassion are only adaptative forms of the Natural selection, then again you have to start with ToE to base morality if it exists.

That's quite a non-sequitur you have there, Blas.

You're assuming that God being a foundation for morality is mutually exclusive with God creating the universe in just the right way that life would eventually form. Why might this be the case?

Furthermore, you seem to be assuming that since God is the foundation of morality in your world view, this somehow means that anything that you view as taking God's place must also play the same role. Not to mention that there are other forms of epistemology that are not based on foundationalism, such as critical rationalism.

It's astounding that you could post an article accusing a 19th century naturalist of endorsing eugenics

Even though he did?

then make such a statement to someone who points out the fact that you misunderstood what the 19th century naturalist was even saying

Derick, Thorton is as usual quote-mining and misrepresenting (what he constantly accuses others of). Here is what he wrote:

Darwin wasn't proposing any state-mandated laws or regulations to keep people from marrying. He said just the opposite.

Darwin did not say “just the opposite.” Darwin proposed “the weaker and inferior members of society not marrying so freely as the sound.” How that would be implemented Darwin simply does not address. He does not say “just the opposite.”

But to get the answer he wants Thorton quote-mines Darwin:

"Hence we must bear without complaining the undoubtedly bad effects of the weak surviving and propagating their kind;"

Tell us CH, how exactly you take the words bear without complaining and twist them into "pass state-mandated laws or regulations to keep people from marrying".

Darwin’s statement that we must “bear without complaining” is in reference to his discussion of withheld care, not marriage. This is a quote-mine.

Darwin says we should “bear without complaining” this burden, in spite of “hard reason” and the benefit withholding care would provide. So Darwin’s position is that caring for the weak would be “highly injurious to the race of man,” one would never be “so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed,” and feelings that we ought to care for the sick are merely “instincts” acquired via evolution. Nonetheless, we ought to “bear without complaining the undoubtedly bad effects of the weak surviving and propagating their kind.”

Next Darwin moves on to another wonderful notion, the idea of marriage restrictions. He previously disussed the idea of withholding care, and though he is sure that the science and logic argue for it, he concluded against it. No such conclusion for marriage restrictions. In fact, Darwin presents this eugenics solution as more acceptable, albeit perhaps not as effective. So Thorton quote-mines Darwin to make his point.

Secondly, after quote-mining Darwin, Thorton next misrepresents me. He writes:

Tell us CH, how exactly you take the words bear without complaining and twist them into "pass state-mandated laws or regulations to keep people from marrying".

But of course I never wrote that. Thorton creates whatever phrase he feels like imputing to the evolution skeptic. Then the rest in the crowd, such as yourself, chime in with your self-righteous indignation.

The lack of self-awareness required to type out those five words is staggering.

I listen to quite a bit of criticism. Sure I make mistakes, but “lack of self-awareness”? I probably process more criticism in a day that most people do in a long, long time.

Take this interchange for example. You guys are quote-mining and false quoting, and then criticizing me for how “staggering” is my “lack of self-awareness.”

I think the problem you have is in some odd idea that the source of all things is the font of morality too. If God, so far so good, and if something else created life, then that other thing must ultimately create morality too. This is simply not the case.

Morality is an entirely human concept. Before human beings there was no morality because there were no moral agents - ie, people who were bound to act morally by virtue of being able to understand the concept. In a childishly simplified form, morality is about people being nice to each other and doing the right thing, that's about it.

Perhaps an example will help: using my expert knowledge of electronics, I build several robots, and program them to be independent agents capable of free thought. Before too long, they have established a mode of behaving to each other and a way of treating each other - a sense of morality, however rudimentary. Now, are we to assume that such morality must be rooted in electronics, since that is how their computer brains came into being?

Of course not. And such is likewise the case with human brains and evolution.

Now, if you're asking me where we should turn to for morality, try philosophy. That's always busied itself with questions like that. But scientific theory, such as the theory of gravity, atomic theory and the theory of evolution are about what is, not what SHOULD be.

Ritchie:"Perhaps an example will help: using my expert knowledge of electronics, I build several robots, and program them to be independent agents capable of free thought. Before too long, they have established a mode of behaving to each other and a way of treating each other - a sense of morality, however rudimentary. Now, are we to assume that such morality must be rooted in electronics, since that is how their computer brains came into being? "

If it not in electronics in what you are going to think is root the morality of a robot that is only electronics?

If a man is an evolved bacteria from where can morality come from if it is not from his biochemistry? What other thing exist in a human?

"If it not in electronics in what you are going to think is root the morality of a robot that is only electronics?"

That they think of it themselves. They create morality for themselves, as we do.

"If a man is an evolved bacteria from where can morality come from if it is not from his biochemistry? What other thing exist in a human?"

The fallacy, I think, is in asking where it comes from. We humans create it. It is an original concept springing from us.

Morality is not objective, nor is it absolute. Being 'moral' or 'immorral' are not objective qualities. They are subjective ones. We decide what is right and wrong. That is why there are so many disagreements over moral matters - because people have slightly different concepts of what is right and wrong.

"Morality is not objective, nor is it absolute. Being 'moral' or 'immorral' are not objective qualities. They are subjective ones. We decide what is right and wrong. That is why there are so many disagreements over moral matters - because people have slightly different concepts of what is right and wrong."=====

Yes that is the perfect description of the present failed situation that exists on Earth today, but it's hardly a recent revelation or enlightenment given us as some generous gift from modern day Higher Learning. In fact this has been made known from the beginning.

Genesis 3

Amplified Bible (AMP)

(1) "NOW THE serpent(Satan) was more subtle and crafty than any living creature of the field which the Lord God had made. And he [Satan] said to the woman, Can it really be that God has said, You shall not eat from every tree of the garden?"

(2) "And the woman said to the serpent (Satan), We may eat the fruit from the trees of the garden,

(3) "Except the fruit from the tree which is in the middle of the garden. God has said, You shall not eat of it, neither shall you touch it, lest you die.

(5) "For God knows that in the day you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing the difference between good and evil and blessing and calamity."

(6) "And when the woman saw that the tree was good (suitable, pleasant) for food and that it was delightful to look at, and a tree to be desired in order to make one wise, she took of its fruit and ate; and she gave some also to her husband, and he ate."----

Ultimately this act has brought mankind down to where we are addressing the discussion of a failed belief system and worldview today.

The world we presently live in is the result of people ignoring Absolutes when it comes to morality. There is nothing wrong with absolutes in morality as a gauge or compass to point in the right direction. This would allow for far greater freedoms than presently exist as humankind would be united as opposed to the multiple ideological messes which run things at the moment.

Blas:"Humanitarism and compassion are product of RM and NS, so you are basing morality in natural selection or I´m missing something?"

Yes, you're missing a good deal. Let's say we base morality on our love for other people. If love is just a chemical reaction in the brain, does that mean we're basing our morality on chemistry or neurology? Of course not. A thing is not its products. There's a distinction here that you're overlooking. Humanitarianism and compassion are products of RM and NS. If we base our morality on them, we base it on them, not on RM and NS. You're taking an unwarranted step back in the chain and then going down a different chain entirely when you talk about humanitarianism conflicting with an individual's interest in self-preservation... and you're ignoring the distinction between philosophy based on facts and the facts themselves.

Cornelius Hunter:'Darwin proposed “the weaker and inferior members of society not marrying so freely as the sound.” How that would be implemented Darwin simply does not address. He does not say “just the opposite.”'

Actually, he OBSERVED it, not proposed it, and then went on to speak of the nobility of humanity in our attempt to CIRCUMVENT the apparent natural order by SUPPORTING the weaker and inferior members of society. So yes, it says JUST THE OPPOSITE of what you claim it does. Read for comprehension, not for talking points.

Was it wrong for evolutionists to sterilize and institutionalize people in the eugenics movement?"====

Not according to the evolutionary science used to justify it. Throw in the infinite number of kooky reasonings of there existing no absolutes or relative truths and any number of conscience numbing justifications can ooze their way to the surface. Ultimately, the evolutionary dogma must be justified and protected at all costs, even if making oneself a fool on an internet debate site. That's where the beauty of annonymity comes in. -----

"Ultimately this act has brought mankind down to where we are addressing the discussion of a failed belief system and worldview today."

You mention the incident in the Garden of Eden as if it was a given fact. In reality it is far, far from it.

"The world we presently live in is the result of people ignoring Absolutes when it comes to morality."

Ignoring? How exactly are we to determine these moral absolutes?

Traditionally, the religious answer is something like "By reading XYZ holy book" but this is massively insufficient too. Practically all religions have infighting and splits over how to interpret said holy books. If the faithful believers of a religion can't even agree on what a holy book says, why should the rest of us take note?

Ultimately, "By reading my holy book" translates as "By doing what I think is right" and we're right back to everyone arguing their own case again.

"Was it wrong for evolutionists to sterilize and institutionalize people in the eugenics movement?"

1) Yes it is wrong.

2) Why are you singling out 'evolutionists' as if it's something everyone who accepts evolution does or approves of, or that ToE leads inevitable to this act? It doesn't.

If anything, ToE highlights the virtue of genetic diversification and the relatedness of all living things. Eugenics has far more to do with notions of racial purity, racial superiority and plain xenophobia, ideas which seem pretty silly to most people with even a rudimentary understanding of evolution.

Ritchie:"The fallacy, I think, is in asking where it comes from. We humans create it. It is an original concept springing from us."

According to ToE, RM+NS selected mans with brains, selected mans with consciusnees, then selected mans with compassion(Zacriel explained that is natural process some human has as advantage) an then selected mans with moral and the ilusion of free will because societies with that traits are best fitted. If this is not true explain how a chemical reaction can create morality.

"Morality is not objective, nor is it absolute. Being 'moral' or 'immorral' are not objective qualities."

Then why all the darwinists get outraged when CH says Darwin was pro eugenetics, it is bad? it is right? is CH better than Darwin because of that. All the morality if ToE is TRUE as you said is subjective. I do not understand darwinist are proud to be naturalist, ateist but not amoralist.

Mike the infidel:"Yes, you're missing a good deal. Let's say we base morality on our love for other people. If love is just a chemical reaction in the brain, does that mean we're basing our morality on chemistry or neurology? Of course not."

"According to ToE, RM+NS selected mans with brains, selected mans with consciusnees, then selected mans with compassion(Zacriel explained that is natural process some human has as advantage) an then selected mans with moral and the ilusion of free will because societies with that traits are best fitted."

Broadly. Ignoring the bit about consciousness (all sentient creatures are conscious) but yes, for our ancestors, intelligence and co-operation were survival advantages.

But you are deconstructing too far. The laws of motion also played their part in the formation of our brains. They played their part. But would you try to derive morality from the laws of motion? Surely not. Such an exercise would be futile.

Morality is a human construct, and that's as far back as we need go. To try to trace morality back futher leads to nonsensical logic.

"Then why all the darwinists get outraged when CH says Darwin was pro eugenetics"

1) Because it is incorrect.

2) Because it is a deliberate slur to try to brand all evolutionists as eugenecists. The implication bubbling just below the surface is 'Evolutionists want to commit genocide.' Which is both outrageously offensive and wildly inaccurate.

"All the morality if ToE is TRUE as you said is subjective."

No, I think morality is subjective, whether or not ToE is true. The two are not connected. Please disassociate all connections in your mind between ToE and morality. There are none. ToE is merely a scientific theory. It is as relevant to morality as the theory of gravity is.

"Hence we must bear without complaining the undoubtedly bad effects of the weak surviving and propagating their kind; but there appears to be at least one check in steady action, namely the weaker and inferior members of society not marrying so freely as the sound; and this check might be indefinitely increased, though this is more to be hoped for than expected, by the weak in body or mind refraining from marriage"

First, whatever Darwin is referring to here has already been in place as he describes it as a "check in steady action". And we also know he's referring to human beings, as animals do not get married. Had eugenics already even remotely been in "steady action"? in Darwin's time?

Second, If someone has some sort of debilitating disease or handicap, there are many things they are not as "free" to take part in, such as running races, scuba diving, etc. While this has changed significantly as we've become more technology driven, this can also mean that someone is not "free" to work and support a family.

free adjective2 [ often as complement ] not physically restrained, obstructed, or fixed; unimpeded: she lifted the cat free.

Third, Darwin clearly states that this check could be increased by "by the weak in body or mind refraining from marriage"

refrainverb [ no obj. ]stop oneself from doing something: she refrained from comment.

Zachriel has already pointed out at least one case where just this has occurred in the case of a a recessive gene for sickle cell anemia.

Apparently,Cornelius thinks this is the obvious "empirical" interpretation of what Darwin wrote. However, this appears to be yet another example of how one cannot extrapolate observations without first putting them into an explanatory framework.

Ritchie:"Morality is a human construct, and that's as far back as we need go. To try to trace morality back futher leads to nonsensical logic."

Ritchie you are hiding behind words, what is a human construct? How can a human construct be something different of a chemical reaction product of our genetic code? Not going further back shows you do not want to know the real basis of your morality.

"1) Because it is incorrect.

2) Because it is a deliberate slur to try to brand all evolutionists as eugenecists. The implication bubbling just below the surface is 'Evolutionists want to commit genocide.' Which is both outrageously offensive and wildly inaccurate."

1) Is debatable. A matter of interpretation of texts always subjective.2) Also debatable I think CH is tryng to show that ToE makes eugenetics a valid alternative and I do not see any rebuttal explaining why eugenetics is not an alternative in the lieght of ToE.

"No, I think morality is subjective, whether or not ToE is true. The two are not connected. Please disassociate all connections in your mind between ToE and morality. There are none. ToE is merely a scientific theory. It is as relevant to morality as the theory of gravity is."

Ok, then ACCORDING TO YOU there is no conection between morality and ToE, but if you do not explains why other different morality based on ToE is possible. And that morality has no problem with eugenetics.

If a presidential candidate were to say as Darwin did, "the weak in body or mind refraining from marriage", would everyone would just rally around them with big votes?

Hitler's ethics was derived from Darwinism. He justified himself because his actions were improving the "race". Darwin was passive and suggestive of it, where Hitler was proactive to the extreme.

But its defend Darwin at all costs! We see where his dark and negative fatalism can lead. It sees life as dumb and inefficient and purposeless. People are looked at as problems and would be better off being extinct (per Whole Truth). It's the mind sucking Darwinian vortex in action.

The opposite side is that life is elegant and has purpose. People are not problems, but people have problems that can often be solved.

While Darwin was in a funk thinking how much better off the world would be without the weak in body and mind, the Creationist, Louis Pasteur, was actually doing practical science that improved the life of millions.

Hitler's ethics was derived from Darwinism. He justified himself because his actions were improving the "race". Darwin was passive and suggestive of it, where Hitler was proactive to the extreme.

Catholic Monarchs Ferdinand II of Aragon and Isabella I of Castile began the Spanish Inquisition. In the name of Christianity they had over 150,000 people brutally tortured and killed. They justified their actions by saying they were bringing people to the Lord.

Shouldn't you give up such a hateful, violent religion there Tedford?

You idiots continue to think if you somehow link evolution with any sort of historical misuse, whether eugenics on the Nazis, it somehow negates the scientific validity of the theory. You have no idea both how ignorant and desperate you clowns sound.

"Ritchie you are hiding behind words, what is a human construct? How can a human construct be something different of a chemical reaction product of our genetic code? Not going further back shows you do not want to know the real basis of your morality."

I am simply trying to show you your extrapolation is futile.

Let's just take it as read that ToE is true. Does that mean every human thought, every human feeling, every idea, every sentence thought or uttered, is rooted, ultimately, in evolution itself being moral?

Compare morality to mathematics. Both are human constructs - they are both born from human minds. But that doesn't mean evolution, which created the human mind, is moral, any more than it is mathematical. The idea is simply a nonsense. If you want to find the root of mathematics, you need only go as far back as the human mind. The same is true of morality too.

"1) Is debatable. A matter of interpretation of texts always subjective."

Okay, if you like.

"2) Also debatable"

You think it's debatable that acceptance of evolution entails approval of eugenics? There are several hundred million people who would argue in the negative...

"I think CH is tryng to show that ToE makes eugenetics a valid alternative and I do not see any rebuttal explaining why eugenetics is not an alternative in the lieght of ToE."

How about this: ToE shows we are all related. No race is inherently superior to any other - 80,000 years ago we were the same African people. We are merely cousins who have been seperated by time and drifted apart (though not very far).

Also, the ideas of racial purity are nonsense. If any white man traces their family line back far enough, we will find black ancestors. I, and every black person on the planet share a common ancestor, even if that ancestor lived as far back as 200,000 years ago. There are no 'pure' bloodlines. The concept is flawed.

Moreover, it is undesirable too. The key to evolutionary success is genetic diversity. If you keep a gene pool uniform, then it will not evolve.

Now let us, just for the sake of argument, compare this with a religious outlook. Imagine we deny common ancestry, and that different species, perhaps even different races, have their own origins and lineages. The idea of 'racial purity' suddenly make a lot more sense. Add to this a belief that your particular race is special, that you are part of a 'chosen people', and you have racial superiority. And concerns of mixing your special lingeage with people of 'lesser' races makes more sense too. Convert or exterminate the infidel, but do not create hybrid children with them. Just saying...

Thornton's got a point. Eugenics may have ToE at it's base, but that does not mean ToE leads to eugenics any more than Christian belief leads to inquisitions. You are simply taking the worst outcome and declaring this to be an inevitable one. Which it most certainly is not.

"It sees life as dumb and inefficient and purposeless."

You are equating evolution with atheism. This is a false connection. The two are perfectly compatible, true, but they are not the same.

In any case, atheism is not necessarily nihilistic. On the contrary, life is all the more precious for being temporary. Why bother to make the most of every day if you have an eternity before you to accomplish everything you want? You have to make the most of life, because this is all you get! Beauty is all the more beautiful for being fleeting.

"The opposite side is that life is elegant and has purpose."

The purpose being to forever serve as canned applause to an eternal deity? What kind of purpose is that? If your idea of purpose is spending eternity (and really, take a moment to consider ETERNITY) singing hymns to a being who, being perfect, shouldn't really need telling how marvellous He is, then I worry for you.

A life dedicating to raising intelligent and well-rounded children is a life lived with purpose. A life dedicated to creating a wonderful work of art is a life lived with purpose. A life dedicated to discovering truths about our world is a life lived with purpose. A life dedicated to, in any of millions of possible ways, leaving the world a slighter nicer/better place than when you arrived in it is a life lived with purpose. An atheist can have a perfectly purpose-driven life.

It was, of course, inevitable and predictable.Neal:Hitler's ethics was derived from Darwinism. He justified himself because his actions were improving the "race". Darwin was passive and suggestive of it, where Hitler was proactive to the extreme

Do you really want to argue Hilter was evil because he was so convinced that Darwin was correct? Did Darwin single out the Jews as being inferior,needing to be eliminated? Would't Darwin's common descent theory be appalling to genocidal manic? If only there had been someone in German history who argued that elimination of the Jews was a " holy" thing.It is difficult to understand the behavior of most German Protestants in the first Nazi years unless one is aware of two things: their history and the influence of Martin Luther. The great founder of Protestantism was both a passionate anti-Semite and a ferocious believer in absolute obedience to political authority. He wanted Germany rid of the Jews. Luther's advice was literally followed four centuries later by Hitler, Goering and Himmler.

Darwin and science is no more responsible for Hilter than is Martin Luther and Christianity . Or to chemistry which allowed Hitler to kill more efficiently.

Ritchie:"Let's just take it as read that ToE is true. Does that mean every human thought, every human feeling, every idea, every sentence thought or uttered, is rooted, ultimately, in evolution itself being moral?

Compare morality to mathematics. Both are human constructs - they are both born from human minds. But that doesn't mean evolution, which created the human mind, is moral, any more than it is mathematical. The idea is simply a nonsense. If you want to find the root of mathematics, you need only go as far back as the human mind. The same is true of morality too."

The human brain the only thing that can do is physicochemical reactions. Agree?Then mathematics and morality are the result of physicochemical reaction Agree? If not are the result of what?Physicochemical reactions are DETERMINED by physical laws. Agree?As maths are for everybody the same, should have every men the same physicochemical reactions for mats.As moral is subjective each men has his physicochemical reactions. Different physicochemical implies differnt chemical composition and different enviroments for that reactions. What determine our brain chemical composition and enviroment? Our genes. What determine our genes Evolution.

What other words besides “huaman construct” “creation of the human mind” are going to include to hide this logic?

“There are several hundred million people who would argue in the negative... “

May be there are hundred millions that thinks the positive, How that matters?

“How about this: ...”

Evolution is the natural selection of the fittest, it take million of years. Humans could improve animal races by artificial selection, why do not improve the humankind speeding up natural selection as we did with animals? Why we spend money keeping alive people that is not going to reproduce anymore?

And yes there are religion that are racists, that do not make better or worst a moral based on ToE. Agree?

Neal: "[Evolution] sees life as dumb and inefficient and purposeless."

No, it sees live as amazing and intelligent for discovering how the knowledge to build our diverse biosphere was created. Furthermore, your interpretation requires making a great number of other assumptions about how we create and justify knowledge. This is a non-sequitur.

Neal: "The opposite side is that life is elegant and has purpose."

Go back and watch Kahn's video, in which he describes evolution as simple elegant solution.

So the argument I’m making here is that in order to give credit to the all-powerful, at least to my mind, a system that comes from very simple, elegant and basic ideas—like natural selection and variations; in our DNA we call those mutations, but the laws of physics and chemistry, from those simple and elegant and basic ideas, for complexity to emerge. …

If you think that knowledge is not created, then we cannot find purpose in creating knowledge. Furthermore, you seem to imply that purpose can only be obtained through foundationalism, with special pleading in the case of God.

It's as if you think this is a direct and obvious interpretation of the facts. However, this appears to be yet another example of how one cannot extrapolate observations without first putting them into an explanatory framework.

Scott:"What explanation other than, whatever plays the role you ascribe to God must be the foundation for morality, were you referring to? Of course, I'm open to any alternative you might want to present."

Scott please read again the discussion I am not looking or presenting any other explanation. My point is:

1) on the contrary as Ritchie said if ToE is TRUE the only base for moral is the evolution itself.

2) If evolution is the only base for moral, eugenetics is a valid alternative.

3)I do not understand why darwinist commenting in this blog are so outraged for saying moral based on ToE and Darwin allows eugenetics.

"1) on the contrary as Ritchie said if ToE is TRUE the only base for moral is the evolutionitself.====

Correct and TOE of course would also be responsible for not only the survival adaptation of good morals as they've defined it here before, but also the crud of the opposite which in reality today out weighs any lucky good.----

2) If evolution is the only base for moral, eugenetics is a valid alternative.====

Of course. It's patterned after "Survival of the fittest". The fact that it was used in the beginning to justify Colonialism and later other totalitarian regimes for decades is the stuff modern history rewriting is made of.----

3)I do not understand why darwinist commenting in this blog are so outraged for saying moral based on ToE and Darwin allows eugenetics.====

They're merely defending their Church and dogma as would any other religious believer defending the attrocities done in the name of their god.

Blas: Ok Zachriel, now I understand your point, but then compassion it is not a moral or amoral behavior and I do not understand where your comment fits in my discussion with Ritchie.

Moral has two related meanings. It can refer to certain feelings people have, like "delicious" or "moral outrage," or it can refer to what humans think about those feelings and their effect on human interactions.

Blas: But if ToE is TRUE, humanitarism or compassion are only adaptative forms of the Natural selection, then again you have to start with ToE to base morality if it exists.

Nope. Morality begins with what people think and feel about events and actions. If you are morally outraged by the death of an innocent, that is your reaction whether or not it is explained by the Theory of Evolution.

Blas: 2) If evolution is the only base for moral, eugenetics is a valid alternative.

Coercive eugenics does not follow as you say it does. However, it is reasonable in some cases for families to consider genetics when planning a family.

Zachriel:"Nope. Morality begins with what people think and feel about events and actions. If you are morally outraged by the death of an innocent, that is your reaction whether or not it is explained by the Theory of Evolution."

Zachriel I will quote myself:"The human brain the only thing that can do is physicochemical reactions. Agree?Then mathematics and morality are the result of physicochemical reaction Agree? If not are the result of what?Physicochemical reactions are DETERMINED by physical laws. Agree?As maths are for everybody the same, should have every men the same physicochemical reactions for mats.As moral is subjective each men has his physicochemical reactions. Different physicochemical implies differnt chemical composition and different enviroments for that reactions. What determine our brain chemical composition and enviroment? Our genes. What determine our genes Evolution."

"The human brain the only thing that can do is physicochemical reactions. Agree?"

Yes.

"Then mathematics and morality are the result of physicochemical reaction Agree?"

Yes.

"Physicochemical reactions are DETERMINED by physical laws. Agree?"

Yes.

"As maths are for everybody the same, should have every men the same physicochemical reactions for mats. As moral is subjective each men has his physicochemical reactions. Different physicochemical implies differnt chemical composition and different enviroments for that reactions. What determine our brain chemical composition and enviroment? Our genes. What determine our genes Evolution."

This is where it gets very weird. Maths and morality are not physical things. They are not tangible. A calculator can work out a sum, but that doesn't mean the sum itself is hiding physically somewhere inside the calculator's wires. Electronics built the calculator. But the sum the calculator solves is not at all dependent on any theories of electronics.

This is not a dodge, it is just the way it is. Evolution may have shaped our brains, but that does not mean we therefore use the theory of evolution as a basis for our morality. That is nonsensical.

"May be there are hundred millions that thinks the positive, How that matters?"

Because if there are hundreds of millions of people who accept ToE and who do not believe in eugenics, then you are clearly wrong to claim otherwise, as well as plain offensive and arrogant to think you can speak for all those people. Cornelius would do well to take note of this point.

"Evolution is the natural selection of the fittest, it take million of years. Humans could improve animal races by artificial selection, why do not improve the humankind speeding up natural selection as we did with animals? Why we spend money keeping alive people that is not going to reproduce anymore?"

The concept of 'improving' a gene pool is absurd. What defines fitness is the ability to survive and reproduce. The only test of that is to see if the creatures do survive and reproduce.

Artificial selection is not natural selection SPED UP. It is natural selection subverted. We made, say, domestic cows bigger and able to produce more milk because we wanted more meat and more milk from them. But being bigger and able to produce more milk is not necessarily a survival advantage. Being bigger means you must eat more to feed your body, and converting precious nutrients into more milk than you need to produce is a waste.

Similarly, how exactly are we to 'improve' the human gene pool? Most of us are perfectly capable of surviving and reproducing ourselves. But imagine for a moment my next-door neighbour is, due to a genetic condition, infertile and bed-ridden. What good could it possibly do me to kill him? He might not be able to reproduce, in which case his substandard genes die with him. It's not as if he takes up scarce and precious resources - we humans produce far more than we actually need. It's not as if looking after him is time spent where I am looking after my own evolutionary interests - we employ careers. People make their living from looking after such people. From an evolutionary point of view, killing him serves no benefit, even before we bring morals into the picture.

"Correct and TOE of course would also be responsible for not only the survival adaptation of good morals as they've defined it here before, but also the crud of the opposite which in reality today out weighs any lucky good."

What nonsense. Morality is no more based on Toe than it is based on the theory of gravity or germ theory. ToE is just a scientific theory, nothing more.

"The fact that it was used in the beginning to justify Colonialism and later other totalitarian regimes for decades is the stuff modern history rewriting is made of."

You think there wasn't any colonialism or totalitarian regimes before the 1850's? Man do you need to read a history book!

"They're merely defending their Church and dogma as would any other religious believer defending the attrocities done in the name of their god."

Ritchie:"Maths and morality are not physical things. They are not tangible."

You are admitting that there exist things outside the natural world?

"Because if there are hundreds of millions of people who accept ToE and who do not believe in eugenics, then you are clearly wrong to claim otherwise, as well as plain offensive and arrogant to think you can speak for all those people. Cornelius would do well to take note of this point."

I am not saying nothing about if one or one million of ToE believers agree or not with eugenics, I am talking about a moral based on ToE, and also I am not saying that a moral based on evolution mandates eugenics. I only say hta a moral based on ToE allows eugenics.

" What good could it possibly do me to kill him? He might not be able to reproduce, in which case his substandard genes die with him. It's not as if he takes up scarce and precious resources - we humans produce far more than we actually need. It's not as if looking after him is time spent where I am looking after my own evolutionary interests - we employ careers. People make their living from looking after such people. From an evolutionary point of view, killing him serves no benefit, even before we bring morals into the picture."

Ritchie, you know that since Malthus, author quoted by Darwin himself, many teorist were looking to charity as waste of precious resources. I will postulate one eugenics derived from ToE: Mankind and planet earth are threatened by the increasing levels of CO2. By far the biggest producers of CO2 per person are northamerican people. A drastic reduction in northamerican population will save the planet and mankind. We need a 9-11 a week to survive.

Blas said, "I will postulate one eugenics derived from ToE: Mankind and planet earth are threatened by the increasing levels of CO2. By far the biggest producers of CO2 per person are northamerican people. A drastic reduction in northamerican population will save the planet and mankind. We need a 9-11 a week to survive."

A 9-11 a week? Why does bad science always lead some people to consider extinction as an alternative? May cool heads prevail (no pun intended)... The earth's climate has never been unchanging. The earth has been warming and cooling since it's origin, much more extreme than the slight changes we see since the industrial age. There are many factors that effect the climate and the fixation on C02 by Warmers is not sensible, not to mention the thought of exterminating people as a cure. Warmers cherry pick evidence just like evolutionists do.

Blas: The human brain the only thing that can do is physicochemical reactions. Agree?

There is no scientific evidence of woo.

Blas: As maths are for everybody the same, should have every men the same physicochemical reactions for mats.

Maths is a broad subject. Most people share many of the same experiences, including the experience of distinct objects. It's a facet of living in a terrestrial environment. Hence, people tend to think in terms of counting numbers. Thinking clouds may not think in terms of discrete objects.

Blas: As moral is subjective each men has his physicochemical reactions.

Yes, but there is commonality among most people.

The rest of your comment didn't make sense to us. Was there a conclusion or point to be made?

"You are admitting that there exist things outside the natural world?"

There is nothing un-/sub-/super- natural about intangible concepts such as morality, logic and mathematics.

"I am not saying nothing about if one or one million of ToE believers agree or not with eugenics, I am talking about a moral based on ToE, and also I am not saying that a moral based on evolution mandates eugenics. I only say hta a moral based on ToE allows eugenics."

Then yes. You CAN base an argument for eugenics on evolution if you wished to.

"Ritchie, you know that since Malthus, author quoted by Darwin himself, many teorist were looking to charity as waste of precious resources. I will postulate one eugenics derived from ToE: Mankind and planet earth are threatened by the increasing levels of CO2. By far the biggest producers of CO2 per person are northamerican people. A drastic reduction in northamerican population will save the planet and mankind. We need a 9-11 a week to survive."

That is not a case for killing my neighbour based on evolution. It is a case for killing my neighbour based on ecology - more precisely, theories of man-made climate change.

"The human brain the only thing that can do is physicochemical reactions. Agree?

Zachriel: "There is no scientific evidence of woo."

That is a scientific nonsense. You will never have a scientific evidence that there is nothing else. If you agree with naturalism you have to admit the brain is only capable of physicochemical reactions or demostrate the existance of other capabilities.

"Maths is a broad subject. Most people share many of the same experiences, including the experience of distinct objects. It's a facet of living in a terrestrial environment. Hence, people tend to think in terms of counting numbers. Thinking clouds may not think in terms of discrete objects. "

In naturalism "thinking" is a physicochemical reaction in our brain that is the point.

"There is nothing un-/sub-/super- natural about intangible concepts such as morality, logic and mathematics."

Then you can show me a scientific prove, using the strict experimental- deductive method that exist something like logic, morality, numbers and any other intangible concept. Remember keep the concept of God outside that demostration.

"Then yes. You CAN base an argument for eugenics on evolution if you wished to."

"Then you can show me a scientific prove, using the strict experimental- deductive method that exist something like logic, morality, numbers and any other intangible concept."

You want me to prove, scientifically, that logic exists? That morality, or some such incorporeal concept exists? No, I really don't think I can. You're wandering away from science and into philosophy here. Can you prove that anything at all exists?

"Then why all this fuss if Darwin could be pro eugenic?"

Imagine if I wrote a blog calling all Catholic priests peadophiles. Or all Muslims zealous terrorists. Or all Americans fat, self-obsessed rednecks. You could, with justification, call these offensive caricatures. It's not that they are absolutely incorrect - some Catholic priests are peadophiles. Some Muslims are zealous terrorists. Some Americans are fat, self-obsessed rednecks. The offense comes from equating a group as a whole to the very worst of its members. Pointing to the worst examples of the group you want to demonise and say 'Look! They're all like THAT!'

Ritchie, it is true that you can't single out the worst examples of a group as representative of the whole.

However, it is important to look at the where their ideas come from. Ideas have consequences and shouldn't be ignored. Ideas are associated with Christianity and Islam the US Constitution and Darwinism.

Christianity teaches very strongly and plainly to love even your enemies and to do violence to no man. It even teaches strongly against even hating someone. So, to do otherwise is a direct violation of core doctrine.

For the US government to outlaw freedom of the press would be a direct violation of the US constitution.

But, eugenics is not a violation of anything that Darwin or early evolutionists wrote. Why the talk of the weak in body and mind? Why even go there? Why did they hold out such a thing as something good? Why even go there?

Darwin had a thing for stero-typing a lot of groups as inferior to himself (blacks, women, those weak in mind). Darwin certainly had his share of mental issues and depression and anxiety... perhaps some could think him to weak minded in that regard. Should we suggest that those that have mental depression shouldn't marry?

But, there is a direct link between Darwins ideas and eugenics. It is not an indirect link. Eugenics was based on directly applying the ideas that Darwin wrote about to evolve a stronger and healthier human population.

The inventors of the Atomic bomb came out with dire warnings to humanity. Far from issuing warnings about applying selection on humans, Darwin was passively suggestive of benefits of it. Well those ideas had consequences.

What is troublesome is the trend in the new wacko thinking of global warmers that is spawning all these ideas of human depopulation as some kind of utopian cure for mother earth.

Ritchie:"You want me to prove, scientifically, that logic exists? That morality, or some such incorporeal concept exists? No, I really don't think I can. You're wandering away from science and into philosophy here. Can you prove that anything at all exists?"

Evolution is a fact?

"Imagine if I wrote a blog calling all Catholic priests peadophiles. Or all Muslims zealous terrorists. Or all Americans fat, self-obsessed rednecks. You could, with justification, call these offensive caricatures. It's not that they are absolutely incorrect - some Catholic priests are peadophiles. Some Muslims are zealous terrorists. Some Americans are fat, self-obsessed rednecks. The offense comes from equating a group as a whole to the very worst of its members. Pointing to the worst examples of the group you want to demonise and say 'Look! They're all like THAT!'"

I do not see CH saying all darwinist are pro eugenics, what I understand he is saying Darwin was pro eugenics and Evolution support eugenics.And you can say catholicism can support pedophiles.

Darwin did write in "The Descent of Man" that he expected the more evolved European races to exterminate the less evolved non-Europeans. It didn't seem to be advocating a policy, ust saying that it was inevitable.

"Christianity teaches very strongly and plainly to love even your enemies..."

That's debatable!

"...and to do violence to no man."

Tell that to the Canaanites.

"But, eugenics is not a violation of anything that Darwin or early evolutionists wrote. Why the talk of the weak in body and mind? Why even go there? Why did they hold out such a thing as something good? Why even go there?"

On the topic of 'Why go there', why do you think Cornelius is making this blog post? Why go THERE?

Let's call a spade a spade for a moment and be honest. It's because, on his quest to undermine ToE at every turn, he has now resorted to implicitly (but still none-too-subtly) equating it to eugenics. An underhand and tasteless move of propaganda.

"But, there is a direct link between Darwins ideas and eugenics. It is not an indirect link."

ToE does not lead logically to eugenics. Not by a long shot. Eugenics is achieved when ToE is glimpsed at through the blood-splattered lenses of a psychopath.

Evolution teaches we are all related, making a nonsense of racial purity and superiority. It explicitly teaches that genetic diversification is a good thing. It also teaches that ideas of 'fitness' and 'improving a gene pool' are totally relative. All in all, this undermines the key notions behind eugenics. The logic between evolution is not, as you seem to suggest, broad and clear, it is twisted and tangental.

"What is troublesome is the trend in the new wacko thinking of global warmers that is spawning all these ideas of human depopulation as some kind of utopian cure for mother earth."

I have yet to hear anyone seriously espouse killing of some description as a solution to climate change.

Not explicitly, no, but on a blogsite who sole purpose is to rubbish ToE at any opportunity and on any conceivable level, the implications are rather clear. Do you get, from the OP, any sense other than Darwin, and by extension 'evolutionists', being a malignant force who want to commit genocide? Honestly?

"What I understand he is saying Darwin was pro eugenics and Evolution support eugenics."

Even if the first point was accurate, what is it's relevance? Darwin could have been the most despicable man who ever drew breath, but that wouldn't cast doubt on whether his theory was true. Was Cornelius simply dabbling in a little dispassionate character assassination against a man who - completely coincidentally - happened to be the father of the theory his entire blog/career is Hell-bent on rubbishing? I wonder what his motive for picking on Darwin could possibly be...

And the second point isn't true. You CAN build an argument for eugenics based on evolution, but you can also build a case just as good, if not better AGAINST eugenics based on evolution too. So to conclude that 'evolution supports eugenics' is misleading at best.

It's like saying 'Germ theory opposes vaccines'. If such is your want, you CAN build an argument against vaccines based on germ theory, but you can also build a case FOR vaccines based on it too. Meanwhile, the theory itself remains entirely morally neutral. So saying 'Germ theory opposes vaccines' is inaccurate and provocative.

Blas: Scott please read again the discussion I am not looking or presenting any other explanation.

That's just it - having read the discussion, I cannot follow your logic.

Why not found morality on Gravity? After all, Hawkins said in his latest book that gravity played a important role in creating stars. And without stars, there would't be any heavy elements or planets from which life would form. And, if gravity if the foundation of morality, why not claim it would be immoral to save people who are about to fall off a cliff, trapped under heavy objects, etc.?

Or why not base morality on the second law of thermal dynamics? If people get cold, then claim it would be immoral to provide them warmth, or immoral to reduce entropy, etc.

This is how arbitrary your claim appears to me.

So, again, I'd ask, if the ToE is true, then why must the ToE be a foundation for morality? If this isn't merely arbitrary, then what reason other than the ToE plays the role of God in your world view? Why must we assume that the fittest should survive, which we've already pointed out is a misrepresentation anyway?

"Christianity teaches very strongly and plainly to love even your enemies and to do violence to no man. It even teaches strongly against even hating someone. So, to do otherwise is a direct violation of core doctrine."

Nat :Darwin did write in "The Descent of Man" that he expected the more evolved European races to exterminate the less evolved non-Europeans. It didn't seem to be advocating a policy, ust saying that it was inevitable.

We did a good job here in North America. And don't forget about Australia. The problem is which definition of "evolve" you are using. Because a group is less technologically advanced does not mean they are less evolved in a scientific sense. That would seem to assume a teleological aspect to evolution. Humans could not survive in many environments that bacteria thrive,are we less evolved?

It's not hiding behind words; it's called 'thinking'. The fact that love is a chemical reaction does not mean that we should derive our morals from the LAWS OF CHEMISTRY. Gravity also affects our brains, but we don't base our morality on the LAW OF GRAVITY.

"3)I do not understand why darwinist commenting in this blog are so outraged for saying moral based on ToE and Darwin allows eugenetics."

Because moral precepts cannot be directly derived from facts without first assuming as et of values. This is Hume's old "is-ought" problem. Eugenics is derived from a value set that places population control and 'good breeding' over the betterment of the whole species. Cooperative and altruistic worldviews can also be derived from the fact of evolution if you begin from a different value set. When you assert that eugenics is the NATURAL result of evolution - the ONLY POSSIBLE result - you are ignoring the influence of a person's values on their reaction to the facts. This is incredibly frustrating and shows you to be small-minded.

"2) If evolution is the only base for moral, eugenetics is a valid alternative."

Morality is not BASED on evolution. Our moral instinct EVOLVED, and we can derive new views on morality from our presuppositions as WELL as the facts we observe. If someone claims to be basing their morality directly on evolution, the truth is that they begin from the assumption that we shouldn't resist the "natural order." The quote which Cornelius is attempting to use to attack Darwin actually shows that Darwin thought we SHOULD resist the "natural order" and help those of us least able to help themselves.

And thus, in response to Cornelius:"Was it wrong for evolutionists to sterilize and institutionalize people in the eugenics movement?"

I believe it was, yes, because I disagree with the values of eugenicists. I don't agree that the fact that natural selection tends to cull the weak means that we should embrace a culling of the weak. Yes, eugenicists do derive their morality from evolution, but only inasmuch as they see this culling as good because it is natural. Nature, as we all well know, doesn't always work out in our best interest, so I believe that to enforce 'natural order' is short-sighted and dangerous.

Eocene:"Ultimately, the evolutionary dogma must be justified and protected at all costs, even if making oneself a fool on an internet debate site. That's where the beauty of annonymity comes in. "

Allow me to make an analogy.

The position of the person who says "evolution leads to eugenics" is like the position of a person who says "gravity leads to suicide," because gravity is all about falling, and so we should all spend our lives falling off of things like tall buildings.

It is not "defending the gravitational dogma" to say that we SHOULDN'T actually be falling off of buildings just because the theory of gravitation leads to falling. To make this claim is to actually make a fool of yourself.

(And I typed all this before seeing that Scott said much the same thing.)

Neal:"Hitler's ethics was derived from Darwinism. He justified himself because his actions were improving the "race". Darwin was passive and suggestive of it, where Hitler was proactive to the extreme."

I hate to tell you this, but Hitler rejected the concept of evolution. He did not believe in the creation of new species, or that mankind was derived from animals ("The most marvelous proof of the superiority of Man, which puts man ahead of the animals, is the fact that he understands that there must be a Creator.") He believed that species were created separately by God. He did, however, believe in a eugenicist refinement of the species, making analogies to the way dogs are bred into more 'perfect' forms. He justified this by claiming to be doing the will of a personified Nature, which he viewed as progressively working to improve the species ("If Nature does not wish that weaker individuals should mate with the stronger, she wishes even less that a superior race should intermingle with an inferior one; because in such a case all her efforts, throughout hundreds of thousands of years, to establish an evolutionary higher stage of being, may thus be rendered futile").

This has nothing to do with evolution. Evolution is simply about change, not 'progress' toward some goal. Nature did not work "throughout hundreds of thousands of years, to establish an evolutionary higher stage of being". What we see is just what happened, not some goal fixed at the beginning of everything.

Blas again:"I do not see CH saying all darwinist are pro eugenics, what I understand he is saying Darwin was pro eugenics and Evolution support eugenics."Which is utterly irrelevant to the fact that evolution is a reality. Darwin could have been a misogynist, racist, murderous, incestuous, thieving bastard, and it would have no effect on whether or not his idea was true. This is called the "genetic fallacy." The origin of an idea is irrelevant to its merits.

I believe it was, yes, because I disagree with the values of eugenicists.

OK, sure, but that wasn’t my question. I asked if it was wrong, period. Just because you disagree doesn’t necessarily make it wrong, does it? So I still ask: Was it wrong for evolutionists to sterilize and institutionalize people in the eugenics movement?

I believe it was, yes, because I disagree with the values of eugenicists.

OK, sure, but that wasn’t my question. I asked if it was wrong, period. Just because you disagree doesn’t necessarily make it wrong, does it? So I still ask: Was it wrong for evolutionists to sterilize and institutionalize people in the eugenics movement?

Oh goodie! CH has taken a temporary break from quote mining and has now moved on to the loaded question.

Cornelius, have you stopped stealing money from the collection plate yet?

"OK, sure, but that wasn’t my question. I asked if it was wrong, period. Just because you disagree doesn’t necessarily make it wrong, does it? So I still ask: Was it wrong for evolutionists to sterilize and institutionalize people in the eugenics movement?"

Cornelius, 'I believe it was/I believe it wasn't' is all you're ever going to get. You asked Mike to make a personal moral judgement. And now you're objecting because he's made one?

Or are you trying to imply morality is objective? That actions have an innate moral value, no matter what anyone says about them? If you are, then good luck with that. Morality is not objective.

Ritchie:"You want me to prove, scientifically, that logic exists? That morality, or some such incorporeal concept exists? No, I really don't think I can. You're wandering away from science and into philosophy here. Can you prove that anything at all exists?"

"Evolution is a fact?"

Ritchie.It is.

So Ritchie cannot prove that anything at all exist, but still confirms evolution is a fact!

"I tell you, not even in Israel have I found such faith." Lc 7:9

MikeTheInfidel said...Blas:"Love=chemical reaction

Moral based in Love

Moral not based in chemical reaction?!

The fact that love is a chemical reaction does not mean that we should derive our morals from the LAWS OF CHEMISTRY. Gravity also affects our brains, but we don't base our morality on the LAW OF GRAVITY.

No? If moral comes from a chemical reaction you have to found moral in that chemical reaction and his products then you have to apply chemistry to studie moral. Add gravity if you want, I understand that chemistry laws includes the effect of gravity in chemical reactions, and I talk to base the moral on Evolution because I think the rules of evolution includes the laws of chemistry in it. If moral comes from a chemical reaction you have to found moral in that chemical reaction and his products then you have to apply chemistry to studie moral.

Ritchie.And the second point isn't true. You CAN build an argument for eugenics based on evolution, but you can also build a case just as good, if not better AGAINST eugenics based on evolution too. So to conclude that 'evolution supports eugenics' is misleading at best.

Sorry, wich is the best case is subjective each darwinist will choose the case according his judgement, based on ToE you cannot say eugenics is wrong is an option as valid as your opinion. If it is true you can make a case for and again eugenics based on evolution is a confirmation ToE cannot predict anything and is a worthless theory.

MikeTheInfidel said.Morality is not BASED on evolution. Our moral instinct EVOLVED, and we can derive new views on morality from our presuppositions as WELL as the facts we observe.

Can you explain what are presuppositions? From where they came from? They are illusions or they are testable realities?

"So Ritchie cannot prove that anything at all exist, but still confirms evolution is a fact!"

A shrill justaposition of science and philosophy. Or perhaps merely you are confused?

Evolution is a SCIENTIFIC fact. Like gravity, or decay. A scientific fact is something which is confirmed, by evidence, to such a degree that to deny it would be perverse. Denying that evolution happens AT ALL (which is different from disaggreeing with HOW things evolve) is like denying that things decay, or age, or that there is a force called gravity. The evidence is around you in such sufficient quantities that denying it is obtuse.

However, this does indeed rest on the assumption that the world around us is REAL. If it isn't, then all the evidence (for evolution, gravity, decay, or indeed, anything at all) is worthless. Maybe the world around us isn't real - you are just a brain in a jar being fed the illusion of the world you see around you, and in the REAL world, there is no such thing as gravity, or decay, or evolution.

It's true that, philosophically, we cannot PROVE the world around us actually exists. We have to assume it does. Otherwise we'd all just lie down, unsure whether to interact with what we think is the world around us, and slowly starve to death.

I assume you accept that gravity exists? That gravity is a fact? Well you can't PROVE that it does either. The world around you could be an illusion. How much faith does it take to believe in gravity?

"I tell you, not even in Israel have I found such faith." Lc 7:9

Are you just picking and choosing the theories you WANT to believe in? You're happy to believe in gravity, so you'll let that go, but you don't WANT to believe in evolution, so all of a sudden it's 'Well we can't PROVE the world actually exists, so any evidence you have is meaningless'. That's a terribly disingenuous argument.

"Sorry, wich is the best case is subjective each darwinist will choose the case according his judgement, based on ToE you cannot say eugenics is wrong is an option as valid as your opinion."

That is true. I am using my own judgement when I say 'eugenics is wrong'. But so is the eugenicist when he says 'eugenics is right'. And all the while, ToE is entirely morally neutral, and saying 'ToE supports eugenics' continues to be factually incorrect.

"If it is true you can make a case for and again eugenics based on evolution is a confirmation ToE cannot predict anything and is a worthless theory."

Not at all. Again you are confused. You are confusing using a theory to make a prediction which can later be validated or falsified, with using a theory as a basis for a moral argument.

I could use the theory of gravity to make a case that 'falling is good'. I could also use the theory of gravity to make a case that 'falling is bad'. Does that mean the theory of gravity 'predicts anything' and is therefore a worthless theory?

What is it with Atheists and this apparent unnatural love affair gravity ???

It's a test Eocene. If you're too stupid to understand the difference between the observed fact of gravity and the theory of gravity, you'll never understand the difference between the observed fact of evolution and the theory of evolution that explains the observed fact.

“Evolution is a SCIENTIFIC fact. Like gravity, or decay. A scientific fact is something which is confirmed, by evidence, to such a degree that to deny it would be perverse. Denying that evolution happens AT ALL (which is different from disaggreeing with HOW things evolve) is like denying that things decay, or age, or that there is a force called gravity. The evidence is around you in such sufficient quantities that denying it is obtuse.”

The old darwinian trick! Change the meaning of the word evolution. Let see if the antidote work:

Is a scientific fact that all the lives forms are derived, trough RM+ NS, from a UCLA?

“However, this does indeed rest on the assumption that the world around us is REAL. If it isn't, then all the evidence (for evolution, gravity, decay, or indeed, anything at all) is worthless. Maybe the world around us isn't real - you are just a brain in a jar being fed the illusion of the world you see around you, and in the REAL world, there is no such thing as gravity, or decay, or evolution.”

If you really think in this way, you have to admit that science is a personal assumption that each of assume many of us made in the same way. Then we assume that there is an agreement about which is the assumption of science. The same can be said about sscientific fact and scientific theory. Then all the discussion of this blog is a matter of what assumption we assume have to be done. Better just lie down.

May be this is an grey area about what means “support”. I understand by support that a given person can construct an argument in favour of eugenics based on ToE. I understand that this is the argument of CH post.

“Not at all. Again you are confused. You are confusing using a theory to make a prediction which can later be validated or falsified, with using a theory as a basis for a moral argument.

I could use the theory of gravity to make a case that 'falling is good'. I could also use the theory of gravity to make a case that 'falling is bad'. Does that mean the theory of gravity 'predicts anything' and is therefore a worthless theory?”

Again probably here I do not well expressed myself. What I was trying to say is ToE cannot predict if practicing eugenics (removing the weaks genes and reducing the diversificattion) will improve or reduce our chances of survival. That is something should be clear after 150 of theory.

I'm really not trying to pull any trick. Just to be as clear as possible.

"Is a scientific fact that all the lives forms are derived, trough RM+ NS, from a UCLA?"

Yes.

"If you really think in this way, you have to admit that science is a personal assumption that each of assume many of us made in the same way. Then we assume that there is an agreement about which is the assumption of science. The same can be said about sscientific fact and scientific theory. Then all the discussion of this blog is a matter of what assumption we assume have to be done. Better just lie down."

Quite right. This is why I prefer to leave philosophy alone. We simply have to make a few base assumptions simply to function. One being that the world around us is indeed real. Incidentally, in order to perform science, another must be naturalism - that is, magic and miracles do not happen.

"May be this is an grey area about what means “support”. I understand by support that a given person can construct an argument in favour of eugenics based on ToE."

On that logic, surely you would also say that Toe opposes eugenics too?

"What I was trying to say is ToE cannot predict if practicing eugenics (removing the weaks genes and reducing the diversificattion) will improve or reduce our chances of survival. That is something should be clear after 150 of theory."

Oh, it can predict what sort of effects eugenics will have on the gene pool. It just can't tell you whether those effects are good or bad, moral or immoral, right or wrong.

"It's a test Eocene. If you're too stupid to understand the difference between the observed fact of gravity and the theory of gravity, you'll never understand the difference between the observed fact of evolution and the theory of evolution that explains the observed fact."====

Thank God I don't have that blind eye of Darwinian FAITH to where I have need of tripping off into Netherworlds of definition shell gaming to justify degenerative behavior!

"The old darwinian trick! Change the meaning of the word evolution."====

TOE itself is the only truly evolving animal which has been observed. Mind you, unlike the blind pointless undirected purposeless world that is supposed to drive mythology evolution for which we never get satifying explanations, TOE is loaded with massive amounts of purpose and intent and generous portions of Goal Driving.

It's kind of like that strange family at the end of the cul du sac who has this strange bizzare creature living in their basement that needs to be fed regularly or it turns on it's masters.---

Blas:

"Let see if the antidote work:

"Is a scientific fact that all the lives forms are derived, trough RM+ NS, from a UCLA?"====

Don't you mean ACLU ??? Of course I've been to UCLA and there really isn't much difference there either.

Ritchie said:"On that logic, surely you would also say that Toe opposes eugenics too?"

Yep! you are right, with ToE you can do everithing you want.

"On that logic, surely you would also say that Toe opposes eugenics too?"

No, that is not true if it were we could know if we should go for eugenics or no.

""Is a scientific fact that all the lives forms are derived, trough RM+ NS, from a UCLA?"

Yes."

Obvously your assumptions aren´t the same of mines. But if science is all matter of assumptions why all this discussion about ID is not science! Do not teach the controversy! Are your assumptions on reality right and the others wrong? Are darwinist superiors to IDers?

CH: OK, sure, but that wasn’t my question. I asked if it was wrong, period. Just because you disagree doesn’t necessarily make it wrong, does it? So I still ask: Was it wrong for evolutionists to sterilize and institutionalize people in the eugenics movement?

Don't you mean, why would sterilizing and institutionalizing people as part of a eugenics movement be wrong for anyone. Period. Rather than just "evolutionists"?

Also, why would someone even need to believe in macro-evolution to think that sterilization and institutionalization would be effective means to implement a eugenics movement?

Furthermore, If intelligent design really has nothing to do with God and the means by which the designer intervenes is abstract, then wouldn't it be possible that the entire biosphere represents an experiment in eugenics by this supposed designer via the gradual and intelligent modification of earlier genomes to produce new species?

- ""On that logic, surely you would also say that Toe opposes eugenics too?"

- Yep! you are right, with ToE you can do everithing you want.

- "On that logic, surely you would also say that Toe opposes eugenics too?"

- No, that is not true if it were we could know if we should go for eugenics or no."

Well hang on, which is it? Yes or no?

----------

"But if science is all matter of assumptions why all this discussion about ID is not science! Do not teach the controversy! Are your assumptions on reality right and the others wrong? Are darwinist superiors to IDers?"

Science is not a matter of assumptions. It is a matter of evidence.

True, we have to make one or two base assumptions just so we can function, but beyond that it's hard facts all the way.

Now, one of these base assumptions is that there is no such thing as magic or miracles. Every theory in science assumes this, at some deep level.

"Catholic monarchs Ferdinand II of Aragon and Isabella I of Castille began the Spanish Inquisition.In the name of Christianity they had over 150,000 people brutally tortured and killed."

Sir, it would certainly help your credibility if you were to study history rather than watching movies.

Though initiated by Ferdinand II the Spanish Inquisition lasted for almost 400 years and was spread across many cities and countries. The actual deaths attributed to the Inquisition number less than 5,000. Nowhere near the 150,000 number you tossed out. 5,000 deaths over 400 years in various countries hardly justifies the statement that Ferdinand and Isabella were responsible for 150,000 killings in the name of Catholicism.

As for wholesale torture, the fact is torture was a small part of the Inquisitions activities, even though torture was common at that time in history. Again you watch too much TV. It sounds like you got your 'facts' from Monty Python.

It was also common for those under suspicion by the Inquisition to flee resulting in their being tried in their absence and executed in effigy if found guilty and condemned to death. Those killed in effigy were listed among the executed just as if they had been actually put to death.

As for the Catholic Church, and by extension all Christianity being responsible for the Inquisition, that too is fantasy. The Spanish Inquisition was a secular tribunal not a Papal tribunal.

"Shouldn't you give up such a hateful, violent religion there Tedford?"

"You idiots continue to think if you somehow link evolution with any sort of historical misuse, whether eugenics on (sic) the Nazis, it somehow negates the scientific validity of the theory. You have no idea how ignorant and desperate you clowns sound."

The hypocrisy found in this statement is breathtaking. You just spent the first paragraph trying to ridicule Tedford's faith because of the abuse of it by some people over 400 years ago during the Spanish Inquisition, arguing that this event showed Christianity to be hateful and violent and therefore worthy of abandonment. Then you turn around and try to argue that the abuse by some of the the Theory of Evolution is irrelevant. The Nazis, known to be using Darwin's writings as their justification, caused the deaths of more than 10,000,000 people in less than ten years. It would seem that which comes out of evolutionary philosophy is what is truly hateful and violent. Evolution contains no moral foundation on which to condemn such actions. Christianity on the other hand has never condoned the actions perpetrated by such as the Spanish Inquisition, even if certain individuals claiming to be followers of Christ have.

Do you, sir, realize how ignorant and desperate you sound? One is forced to wonder, are you really this ignorant or are you so desperate to defend your faith in evolution that you would stoop to any level of intellectual dishonesty to accomplish your goal?

The hypocrisy found in this statement is breathtaking. You just spent the first paragraph trying to ridicule Tedford's faith because of the abuse of it by some people over 400 years ago during the Spanish Inquisition, arguing that this event showed Christianity to be hateful and violent and therefore worthy of abandonment. Then you turn around and try to argue that the abuse by some of the the Theory of Evolution is irrelevant.

LOL! Another Creationist nitwit too dumb to realize when sarcasm is being used as a rhetorical device to make a point.

No wonder you guys suck so bad in areas that require logical thinking like science.

"I do not need to assume magic or miracles to believe Evolution is not a fact."

That's absolutely true. But then I would like to hear on what grounds you'd oppose evolution.

Let us establish a few things:

Do you agree that life on Earth has changed - that is, that there were, in the past, have been species other than the ones alive today?

Do you agree that individuals pass on the genes to their offspring?

Do you agree that there is genetic variation in a gene pool?

Do you agree that individuals more best suited for survival will be more likely to survive?

"I probably agree that ID is not science, but with your vision about reality seems a little arrogant from say that. What you can say based on my assumption is not science."

Well I'm trying to be objective. Either ID mandates naturalism or it doesn't. If it does, then by what natural forces, exactly, does any creative intelligence intervene? If it doesn't, then it simply isn't science.

So in the never-ending struggle to survive that is nature, the creatures which are best adapted to survive will tend to be the ones to survive, and thus pass on their genes, while the creatures less well-suited to survive will tend not to survive, and thus their genes will disappear. Agree?

Thus, the genes which made the successful individuals successful will tend to get passed on, and eventually become common in the gene pool, while genes which do not bestow an advantage will tend to be weeded out of the gene pool. Agree?

Because this, in a nutshell, is the theory of evolution via natural selection. If you agree with the above, then you pretty much have agreed with ToE. This is it. That's all ToE is.

"So in the never-ending struggle to survive that is nature, the creatures which are best adapted to survive will tend to be the ones to survive, and thus pass on their genes, while the creatures less well-suited to survive will tend not to survive, and thus their genes will disappear."====

This is nothing more than Kindergarten stuff. Any child would understand that, yes, the healthiest and fittest Douglas fir trees survive and the unhealthy ones don't make it.----

That's Rich:

"Thus, the genes which made the successful individuals successful will tend to get passed on, and eventually become common in the gene pool, while genes which do not bestow an advantage will tend to be weeded out of the gene pool."====

While this was certainly true at one time, and perhaps still may work this way as far as micro-environment pockets around our Earth. This healthy mechanism is fast failing and various forms of life have picked up steam in the extinction game.

Evolutionists say that Humans are the ever evolving and improving animal. Yet the Bible says that Humans had a perfect beginning and have deteriorated down hill ever since. Which line of understanding has been proven true ??? This theme runs throughout it's pages, Jeremiah 31:29 - Lamentations 7:5 etc etc etc.

Epigenetics and Genomic Imprinting studies have comfirmed the truthfullness of imperfect sinful actions of human decision making are past onto descendants many generations later who further make their own negative life choices which further deteriorate and cause defect in human genetics. Animals, birds, fish and plants are genetically effected by the lousy decision choices humans make motivated by this degenerative misuse and abuse of freewill and have suffered greatly.

Evolution, even IF it were true would never undue the present damage caused by mankind and make the necessary unplanned unguided lucky corrections for which the dogma insist happen all the time.

"This is nothing more than Kindergarten stuff. Any child would understand that, yes, the healthiest and fittest Douglas fir trees survive and the unhealthy ones don't make it."

I never claimed it was complicated. Yes I am simplifying but in essence, this is ToE.

"While this was certainly true at one time, and perhaps still may work this way as far as micro-environment pockets around our Earth. This healthy mechanism is fast failing and various forms of life have picked up steam in the extinction game."

Where is this mechanism failing? And how is it failing, exactly?

"Epigenetics and Genomic Imprinting studies have comfirmed the truthfullness of imperfect sinful actions of human decision making are past onto descendants many generations later"

"The evidence that the UCLA became all the life forms by repetition of the process described."

Well the biggest evidence comes from genetics. The first clue is that all life on Earth share the same genetic code. But even beyond this, we can compare the genomes of living creatures and discovery they form nested hierarchies, which correlate with those drawn from taxonomy. This alone is very strong evidence for common ancestry.

In fact, why don't I just link you to this page for evidence. It's from wiki, but it's all sourced so you can follow up on whatever you like:

The researchers in the above documentaries and studies involved are labled as scientific heretics and rablerousers. Why ??? Serious, it's not that hard to figure who's worldview is severely damaged by their damning evidence.

Ritchie:"In fact, why don't I just link you to this page for evidence. It's from wiki, but it's all sourced so you can follow up on whatever you like"

Ritchie I know all that "evidence". The only hard evidence for evolution is the nested hierarchies of traits in vertebrates. All the other evidence are interpretation of evidence assuming ToE.Just for clarification "nested hierarchies of traits" is a scientific fact, that do not make a fact the ToE. In my assumptions for science facts is a reproducible observation.

Me: Was it wrong for evolutionists to sterilize and institutionalize people in the eugenics movement?

Ritchie: Cornelius, 'I believe it was/I believe it wasn't' is all you're ever going to get. You asked Mike to make a personal moral judgement. And now you're objecting because he's made one? Or are you trying to imply morality is objective? That actions have an innate moral value, no matter what anyone says about them? If you are, then good luck with that. Morality is not objective

So then your answer to the question of whether or not it was wrong for evolutionists to sterilize and institutionalize people in the eugenics movement is, “No,” it was not wrong.

You may personally disagree with it because of the way the molecules are arranged in your head, but that doesn’t make it wrong. In fact, all you have is your opinion, which has no more standing than the evolutionist’s opinion. Correct?

Right, well from what I can gather what you are linking to is various literature which claims/implies that chemicals and contaminants are interfering with fertility rates.

This is not the mechanism of natural selection breaking down or being factually incorrect. This, if true (and who am I to say either way?) is simply new, outside forces influencing fertility rates. This says nothing at all about the veracity of random mutation and natural selection.

This is not ToE being FACTUALLY INCORRECT - this is concern about the effect modern day chemicals and conveniences are having on us and those around us biologically. That's something else entirely!

"Evolutionists say that Humans are the ever evolving and improving animal. Yet the Bible says that Humans had a perfect beginning and have deteriorated down hill ever since. Which line of understanding has been proven true ??? This theme runs throughout it's pages, Jeremiah 31:29 - Lamentations 7:5 etc etc etc."

Wow. A triple question mark. I see some horizontal meme transmission between fellow lunatics boreagain666 and Eocene, who can't wait for the End Of The World so they can spend eternity together in a threesome with Jeebus. Have fun guys, but don't forget to play it safe!

"So then your answer to the question of whether or not it was wrong for evolutionists to sterilize and institutionalize people in the eugenics movement is, “No,” it was not wrong.

You may personally disagree with it because of the way the molecules are arranged in your head, but that doesn’t make it wrong. In fact, all you have is your opinion, which has no more standing than the evolutionist’s opinion. Correct?"

First of all, can you please stop referring to people who carry out eugenics as 'evolutionists'. It is a petty stab at vilifying and it should be beneath you. It's like lumping all Christians in with the KKK. Call them eugenicists if that is who you are referring to.

Secondly, you are indeed wrong. My answer is not 'no, eugenics is not wrong'. It is 'yes, eugenics is wrong'.

Granted, I am appealing to my own sense of morality. And since morality is subjective, my opinion is not inherently better than that of a eugenicist.

Is that a conclusion you find repellent? Do you conclude that morality must be objective simply to avoid the implication that your opinion could be worth only as much as someone who disagrees with you?

Nested hierarchies can be the result of an orchard model, true is easy to explain by a common descent model. That do not make ToE a fact especially when nested hierarchies are not so nested in non cordates.

CH: So then your answer to the question of whether or not it was wrong for evolutionists to sterilize and institutionalize people in the eugenics movement is, “No,” it was not wrong.

You may personally disagree with it because of the way the molecules are arranged in your head, but that doesn’t make it wrong. In fact, all you have is your opinion, which has no more standing than the evolutionist’s opinion. Correct?

Cornelius,

On one hand, you're asking if it was wrong for "evolutionists" to sterilize and institutionalize people in the eugenics movement. On the other hand, you're suggesting that whether one believes that evolution is a reasonably accurate theory would represent "the way the molecules were arranged in their head."

As such, the specific question you asked is whether an act is moral depending on "the way the molecules are arranged in [someone's] head". Otherwise, it's unclear what purpose specifically mentioning "evolutionists" serves in your question, other than to vilify it.

If Ritchie answers "yes" then the act of sterilizing and institutionalizing people is not objective because your question is specific to "evolutionists", rather than to everyone as a whole. And it's the same if he answers "no".

"Evolutionists say that Humans are the ever evolving and improving animal. Yet the Bible says that Humans had a perfect beginning and have deteriorated down hill ever since. Which line of understanding has been proven true ??? This theme runs throughout it's pages, Jeremiah 31:29 - Lamentations 7:5 etc etc etc."

Let's see, there are way more humans on the Earth now than there were at any time in the past, and especially the distant past, and the population is growing fast. Humans are generally healthier and live longer on average than ever before, unless of course you swallow the BS in the bible about people living for hundreds of years. The world is over populated. Fertility isn't a problem except in a small amount of individuals (as compared to the whole population). Without population control, any agenda is doomed to failure, sooner or later. The resources of the Earth are finite, and many are already being strained to their limits.

Humans were never "perfect" and never will be. Your delusions are not and never will be proven true. How can a grown man believe the fairy tales in the bible over reality? How can anyone be so brainwashed and indoctrinated?

Me: Was it wrong for evolutionists to sterilize and institutionalize people in the eugenics movement?

Ritchie: Morality is not objective […] My answer is not 'no, eugenics is not wrong'. It is 'yes, eugenics is wrong'. Granted, I am appealing to my own sense of morality.

You are contradicting yourself. You cannot say “Eugenics is wrong” and “there is no such thing as objective morality.” You are fooling yourself.

If you believe there is no such thing as objective morality, then you cannot say eugenics is wrong, because in that case nothing could be wrong.

Granted, I am appealing to my own sense of morality.

Imagine a mathematician claiming that another mathematician has made a mistake, but then saying “Granted, I am appealing to my own sense of mathematics.” That would be silly.

If there were different versions of mathematics floating around, and everyone could make up their own equally-valid version, then all solutions could be, and indeed *would* be, both incorrect and correct (and everything in between), and no one would ever say “that solution is incorrect.”

But you do say eugenics is wrong. And you won’t say eugenics is not wrong. That’s an internal contradiction.

In fact, not only do you say eugenics is wrong, but you justify it as coming from your own sense of morality. Where did that come from, and of what value is that? Oh, that’s right, it came from evolution. Those veering atoms and random mutations just happened to create molecular arrangements in your head so you have a sensation of morality.

Beyond the absurdity of this myth, there is the ludicrous proposition that it matters. Why would your own sense of morality even be worth a mention? It would be like saying a mathematical solution is incorrect according to that cloud over there. So what if you have a sense of morality? According to your own belief, that sense has precisely zero bearing on the issue. Why would you even mention it?

I asked it eugenics is wrong. Your answer should have been, “of course not, nothing is wrong. It’s perfectly fine.” But you won’t say that.

"You are contradicting yourself. You cannot say “Eugenics is wrong” and “there is no such thing as objective morality.”"

When I say 'Eugenics is wrong', I do not mean it is objectively wrong. I mean 'My opinion is that it is wrong'.

"But you do say eugenics is wrong. And you won’t say eugenics is not wrong. That’s an internal contradiction."

Again, you are getting confused. When a person says something is wrong, they are not stating an objective truth. They are making a moral claim. They are saying that they find the thing wrong. There is no contradiction.

It would be like if I said 'Spinach is delicious'. Am I claiming spinach to be OBJECTIVELY delicious? No. Tastiness is subjective. I would simply mean 'In my opinion, spinach is delicious'.

"Where did that come from, and of what value is that? Oh, that’s right, it came from evolution. Those veering atoms and random mutations just happened to create molecular arrangements in your head so you have a sensation of morality."

And this is where you veer of from the merely mistaken into the absurd. Of course morality doesn't come from evolution - on any level. No-one claims it does. It is a ridiculous anti-evolutionist strawman. ToE is a scientific theory, and scientific theories carry no moral values. They merely state what IS, not what OUGHT TO BE.

"Beyond the absurdity of this myth, there is the ludicrous proposition that it matters. Why would your own sense of morality even be worth a mention?"

It matters very much to me. And I am one voice. Even if that is one voice among billions, it doesn't count for NOTHING.

It is the individuals which make up a society which collectively determine the laws, the values and taboos of that society. Like a democracy, every person's voice might be small, but it counts for something. My morals, like my vote, contributes to the societal whole, even if in a small way.

It doesn't matter WHERE morality comes from. It only matters that people have reasonably good morals, and NONE of you religious zealots have reasonably good morals. You use every dishonest trick and distortion possible, just to try to win an argument. I can only imagine what you do to get away with who knows what in your personal lives.

It is the ultimate in arrogance for you to assert that your belief in your imaginary chosen god gives you the corner on good morals, and especially when your actions, at least here on this blog, don't match your self righteous morality claims.

CH: If you believe there is no such thing as objective morality, then you cannot say eugenics is wrong, because in that case nothing could be wrong.

Cornelius,

That "eugenics is wrong" wasn't your question, as you haven't qualified it with the term "evolutionists".

Again, either your question was qualified by the use of the term "evolutionists", which excludes it from being objective in the justificationist form you're attempting to present or it would appear that you're merely attempting to vilify "evolutionists".

Which is it?

Now in regards to your question, we can say that specific forms of eugenics are objectively wrong.

Rather than elaborate on the details as to why, I'd again point to Sam Harris' TED talk in which he presents a objective moral landscape based on truth claims about what causes changes in the state of conscious creatures.

A summary from Harris…

…Morality and values depend on the existence of conscious minds—and specifically on the fact that such minds can experience various forms of well-being and suffering in this universe. Conscious minds and their states are natural phenomena, of course, fully constrained by the laws of Nature (whatever these turn out to be in the end). Therefore, there must be right and wrong answers to questions of morality and values that potentially fall within the purview of science. On this view, some people and cultures will be right (to a greater or lesser degree), and some will be wrong, with respect to what they deem important in life.

In other words, despite the fact that we do not have exhaustive knowledge of how changes to the genome would effect conscious minds, there are objectively right and wrong ways to move in this space. I'd again point to the knowledge that parents with recessive sickle cell could lead to a child expressing it. As such their choice to refrain from having children would be moral based on our current knowledge.

CH:In fact, not only do you say eugenics is wrong, but you justify it as coming from your own sense of morality. Where did that come from, and of what value is that? Oh, that’s right, it came from evolution.

Not to butt in on another theist arguing that because they believe in a god that their basis for morality is objective, but eugenics itself,divorced from any coercion, inherently, absolutely wrong,Dr Hunter? If used by an individual ? Would the reason used affect the morality? I'd ask Richie but since his head is full of only veering atoms and random mutations, what's the point? If you do feel it is absolutely wrong,would you mind kinda walking thru the reasoning? Thanks

If you can read, and I sort of doubt it, try reading Mein Kampf. That should provide all the evidence you'll need. Or you could simply look at what Hitler was wanting to accomplish by promoting the idea of an Aryan master race. Of course with you it's not about evidence, it's simply about calling people names and pretending you're some kind of intellect. You obviously can delude yourself into thinking you're intelligent but you're fooling no one but yourself.

Deny the Hitler/Darwin connection all you want. It does not change the facts.

To Sparta, this would ensure only the strongest survived and procreated.Adolf Hitler considered Sparta to be the first "Völkisch State", and much like Ernst Haeckel before him, praised Sparta for its selective infanticide policy, though the Nazis believed the children were killed outright and not exposed.

Every one of these proselytes constant chant "The are no absolutes and truth is relative". Right Larry ???

Yet when backed into a corner on this publically, they desparately invent on the spot all manner of spin nonsense and idiocy so as not to allow their worldview to come off as assinine and absurd as it truthfully is. With all sorts of lurking komrades out there looking on, being backed into a corner and admitting they are complete FOOLS is not an option.

Oh for goodness sake, pipe down. If you have a point, make it, but this chest-thumpng serving as nothing more than canned applause for others really makes you look a fool. Cornelius' point is flawed and I have answered him. So simply crowing and cheering him on is utterly asinine.

"Oh for goodness sake, pipe down. If you have a point, make it, but this chest-thumpng serving as nothing more than canned applause for others really makes you look a fool. Cornelius' point is flawed and I have answered him. So simply crowing and cheering him on is utterly asinine."=====

Anybody else getting creeped-out and feeling the heavie-jeavies here with this one ???

All scientific knowledge is provisional. Evidence might turn up tomorrow which would show that we have been wrong about ANYTHING up to now.

All we have in science is 'best explanations according to the currect available data'.

The temptation is to see this as a weakness - that nothing is certain, so what's the use? But it is actually a strength. When your theories and facts are wide open to falsification, even welcomes it, but they have NOT been falsified (yet), then you may proceed with relative confidence that they are probably right.

"All scientific knowledge is provisional. Evidence might turn up tomorrow which would show that we have been wrong about ANYTHING up to now.

All we have in science is 'best explanations according to the currect available data'.

The temptation is to see this as a weakness - that nothing is certain, so what's the use? But it is actually a strength. When your theories and facts are wide open to falsification, even welcomes it, but they have NOT been falsified (yet), then you may proceed with relative confidence that they are probably right."

The ToE - theory of evolution - is not a fact. It's a theory. What is a fact is that evolution - common descent and the changing of biological life on the planet over deep time - has indeed occurred. That fact was established by empirical observations from dozens of different scientists collected over the last several hundred years.

Allow me to clarify: it is not the THEORY of evolution which is a fact. A theory is a theory and a fact is a fact. It is the process of evolution which is considered to be a fact. Evolution is a theory AND a fact. But they are seperate things. This might seem a petty distinction but it is an important one nonetheless.

Now, evolution is held to be a fact through sheer weight of supporting evidence. For biologists, there is simply too much of it to deny evolution happens.

"Allow me to clarify: it is not the THEORY of evolution which is a fact. A theory is a theory and a fact is a fact. It is the process of evolution which is considered to be a fact. Evolution is a theory AND a fact. But they are seperate things. This might seem a petty distinction but it is an important one nonetheless.

Now, evolution is held to be a fact through sheer weight of supporting evidence. For biologists, there is simply too much of it to deny evolution happens."

We have been here before:

"Ritchie said...Blas -

"The old darwinian trick! Change the meaning of the word evolution."

I'm really not trying to pull any trick. Just to be as clear as possible.

"Is a scientific fact that all the lives forms are derived, trough RM+ NS, from a UCLA?"

Yes."

""Because this, in a nutshell, is the theory of evolution via natural selection. If you agree with the above, then you pretty much have agreed with ToE. This is it. That's all ToE is."

LOL!

I will quote myself:"The old darwinian trick! Change the meaning of the word evolution""

Evolution cannot be a fact because:

Ritchie:"All scientific knowledge is provisional. Evidence might turn up tomorrow which would show that we have been wrong about ANYTHING up to now"

Maybe to understand each other we can try to understand what do you mean by fact in the assumption of your Science framework?

Consider gravity. Gravity is also both a scientific fact and scientific theory.

The existence of gravity as a force is held to be scientific fact. This is because there is simply too much evidence to deny gravity as a force. Pick up the nearest object and drop it. That's evidence of gravity right there.

There is also a theory of gravity, which we have drawn up to explain all our relevant observed data. This explains the properties of gravity, what's its power and limits are, and generally makes sense of every observed piece of data on gravity that we have.

Now this theory is, of course, provisional. We might discover some new evidence tomorrow about how gravity interacts inside at the centre of a black hole, or at the centre of an atom, etc, which was completely unexpected and causes us to rethink our theory of gravity. Maybe gravity doesn't work in quite the way we think it does.

And all the while, apples continue to fall, helium balloons continue to go up and moons continue to orbit planets. The fact of gravity does not go away simply because the theory gets a new tweak.

There are an infinitude of *possible* explanations, but only one credible scientific explanation. (Technically, a group of closely related explanations that compete on the details.)

More importantly, we can use this theory to predict the empirical phenomena. So, as land vertebrates are posited to have evolved from aquatic vertebrates, and from the overall historical pattern, we might look for intermediate forms near the time of the posited divergence. Each newly discovered species, extant or extinct, adds confidence to the theory while also filling in new details of the historical transformations.

Blas: With evolution?

There is a distinction to be made. The Theory of Evolution not only concerns the mechanisms of evolution, but the history of evolution. The Theory of Gravity typically only concerns the mechanisms, but we can expand this to include the history of gravity and bodies over time, such as the formation of the Solar System. While new details may be discovered about the formation of the Solar System, there is little doubt that gravity played an important role. Similarly, while we may discover that birds evolved from theropods rather than more primitive archosaurs, there is little doubt that evolutionary mechanisms played an important role.

What you seem to be asking for is evidence of a universal common ancestor.

This is different from evidence for the process of evolution.

The process of evolution is merely random mutation and natural selection. Technically, common ancestry is not necessarily part it.

Common ancestry is, however, part of the modern THEORY of evolution. It is a fact which has been deduced. Particularly from the field of genetics. The fact that all life uses the same genetic code is a big giveaway. As are the neat hieracrhies which we can arrange living (and extinct) creatures into.

The examples I gave you above are examples of the process of evolution - that is, the fact of evolution.

Common ancestry is a different scientific fact. And if you want evidence for that, then I hope you are fluent in genetics...?

These comments show a basic lack of understanding of the Bible, specifically with the distinction between the Old Testament and the New Testament. Do you know why they are called Old and New Testaments?

Christianity is to be lived according to the New Testament. Jesus and many of his disciple were killed because of its distinction from the Old Testament. Your comments are intended as pot shots, but they betray your misunderstanding.

The teachings of Christianity are clear concerning love (here is a small sample):

1 John 4:20 "If anyone says, "I love God," yet hates his brother, he is a liar. For anyone who does not love his brother, whom he has seen, cannot love God, whom he has not seen."

Luke 6:35 - "But love your enemies, do good to them, and lend to them without expecting to get anything back."

Luke 9:51-56 - When the days were approaching for His ascension, He was determined to go to Jerusalem; and He sent messengers on ahead of Him, and they went and entered a village of the Samaritans to make arrangements for Him. But they did not receive Him, because He was traveling toward Jerusalem. When His disciples James and John saw this, they said, “Lord, do You want us to command fire to come down from heaven and consume them?” But He turned and rebuked them, [and said, “You do not know what kind of spirit you are of; for the Son of Man did not come to destroy men’s lives, but to save them.”] And they went on to another village. "

Matthew 5:39 - But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also."

The Old Testament is still part of the holy Bible. It is still holy scripture.

The Westboro Baptist Church (the God Hates Fags people), who basically rejoice to condemn everyone in the world bar themselves, interpret the same holy text as you do differently. Yours may be more common, more popular perhaps, but there is nothing objective to say they are wrong and you are right. It is all just interpretation.

Consequently, holding the Westboro Baptist Church up as an example of all Christians would be unfair and inaccurate.

As it is when Creationists hold eugenecists/Nazis up as examples of 'evolutionists/atheists'.

"The fact that all life uses the same genetic code is a big giveaway."

A big giveaway about what?

"Then I hope you are fluent in genetics...?"

I hope by this statement you're not claiming you are fluent in genetics. In fact no one in the world is even remotely fluent in genetics. The truth is our understanding of the language of genetics is comparable to the understanding of hieroglyphics prior to the finding of the Rosetta Stone, probably far worse.

You could not be more wrong. One cannot interpret the Bible, or any literature for that matter in any way they choose, nor can they claim their interpretation is as valid as any other. The plain fact is that there are strict rules which must be followed when it comes to interpretation. It's obvious from your statement you have no knowledge of hermeneutics. I'm sure you will now look it up and claim you know all about it.

Those at the Westboro Baptist Church abuse the Bible and interpret it to their own detriment. Their interpretation is not as valid as any other.

Are all evolutionists proponents of eugenics? No, but eugenics takes its cues from evolution.

Ritchie said, "No, that is your interpretation of the Bible....but there is nothing objective to say they are wrong and you are right."

--

I just quoted scripture in my post your replying to, I didn't offer an interpretation of it! You read the scripture yourself and concluded that the Westboro church interprets it differently than YOU! I'm not faulting you, because the meaning of the quotations is so easy to understand... perhaps you took it as my interpretation because it was so plain. Let's not accept that 2+2=4, if we can't accept that "love your enemies, do good to them" is not as plain as anything.

In 1912, in his presidential address to the First International Congress of Eugenics, a landmark gathering in London of racial biologists from Germany, the United States, and other parts of the world, Major Leonard Darwin, Charles Darwin’s son, trumpeted the spread of eugenics and evolution. As described by Nicholas Wright Gillham in his A Life of Francis Galton, Major Darwin foresaw the day when “eugenics would become not only a grail, a substitute for religion, as Galton had hoped, but a ‘paramount duty’ whose tenets would presumably become enforceable.” The major repeated his father’s admonition that, though the crudest workings of natural selection must be mitigated by “the spirit of civilization”, society must encourage breeding among the best stock and prevent it among the worst “without further delay”.

Such talk by Darwin's kin today would get them run out of town. Nazism was so extreme and cruel and disgusting to most people that it pretty much settled the question among evolutionists ever since.

You could not be more wrong. One cannot interpret the Bible, or any literature for that matter in any way they choose, nor can they claim their interpretation is as valid as any other.

LOL! That's pretty rich coming from a Creationist, when one of their main stupid arguments is to point at scientific evidence and yell that their YEC interpretation of the data is as good as main stream science's.

The problem with your statement is that you assume 'main stream' science and science as practiced by creationists is different. The only difference is creationists do not apply the wholly unscientific practice of excluding other explanatory options as does main stream science when it a priori rejects all but natural explanations. And don't try to argue that science has always done so because history will prove you wrong. Science was practiced for centuries before the 'natural explanations only' school of thought came to be dominant and much was accomplished by those like Newton, etc.

Why do you insist on showing yourself to be such a pompous boor? You seem to think if you bluster and yell everyone will listen to what you have to say and think you a large intellect. The true situation is that most thinking people see through people like yourself very quickly. Loud and full of hot air but with really nothing to contribute outside of insults and vapid assertions of your view of the world. As before, truly pathetic.

The problem with your statement is that you assume 'main stream' science and science as practiced by creationists is different. The only difference is creationists do not apply the wholly unscientific practice of excluding other explanatory options as does main stream science when it a priori rejects all but natural explanations.

OK, so give us some examples of science, as practiced by creationists, that is not based on natural explanations.

LOL! Sorry, that's just your interpretation. Everyone knows a Creationist cannot interpret pro-evolution evidence, or any scientific literature for that matter in any way they choose, nor can they claim their interpretation is as valid as any other.

Just another example of your pompous assertions. What constitutes 'pro-evolution evidence'? Yes, that's right, pro-evolution evidence is that which is interpreted to be pro-evolution. If one wished to interpret that evidence as meaning something else while adhering to scientific (do not read evolution) standards one can certainly do so.

You and so many others make the absurd assumption that all science is evolution and all evolution is science. Nothing is further from the truth.

"OK, so give us some examples of science, as practiced by creationists, that is not based on natural explanations."

The main problem that evolutionists have is their definition of 'natural'. Evolutionists tend to assume that 'natural' by definition excludes a supernatural source. The fact that one supplies a 'natural explanation' for a phenomenon does not explain the source of that phenomenon. In other words, a natural phenomenon may well come from a supernatural source. Main stream science a priori rejects that possibility and therefore limits itself.

As I said before much was discovered in science over many centuries without the a priori rejection of the supernatural. Johann Kepler saw his research as 'thinking God's thoughts after him." If he could function as a scientist without rejecting supernatural possibilities, why do so many today think it is mandatory that science now reject the supernatural?

You might have had an argument if main stream science claimed to know the limits of the natural world or to have exhaustive knowledge of all natural laws. But it doesn't.

Nic: The fact that one supplies a 'natural explanation' for a phenomenon does not explain the source of that phenomenon.

Nic,

Perhaps you'll be the one who can answer the following question. What is the "source" of the knowledge the supposed deigned used to create each species? Where did come from? When was it created?

In other words, a being that was "just there", complete with the knowledge already present to build each species, serves no explanatory purpose, as one could just as simply state that all organisms "just happened", complete with this same knowledge already present in it's DNA.

All you've done is push the problem into some unexplainable realm where this unexplainable mind apparently exits. It's as if you've pushed the food around on your plate, then claimed you've ate it, but it's still there staring you in the face.

Nic: In other words, a natural phenomenon may well come from a supernatural source. Main stream science a priori rejects that possibility and therefore limits itself.

It may well be that standing on one's head cures cancer. However, it's unlikely that anyone is actually performing research to determine if this is the case. Is it because it's logical impossible? No. Is it because it's unfalsifiable? No, it would be trivial to test. Then why is such research unlikely? Because we lack an explanation as to why standing on one's head would cure cancer. In fact science discards a near infinite number of mere possibilities every day in every field for the same reason.

Why should God be any different? Because your preferred holy book said God did it?

Neal: Scott, Why should evolution be any different? Because your preferred book said evolution did it?

Neal,

It seems that my point has gone over your head.

In science, our critera isn't natural or supernatural. We discard standing on one's head as a cure for cancer because we lack an explination as to why standing on one's head would cure cancer. There is no supernatural implication, but a lack of explanation.

To claim anything is supernatural is, by definition, a claim that it is unexplainable. So we discard it as well. There is no special discrimination or limitation in the case of the supernatural. Science discards a near infinate number of mere possibilities each and every day.

On the other hand, Evolutionary theory explains the origin of the knowledge of how to build each species, as found in the genome, in that it was created via mutations, HGT, duplications, etc. and natural selection. It's a theory of knowledge creation.

Of course, my question to Nic is open to you as well. Why don't you take a crack at it?

Cornelius G. Hunter is a graduate of the University of Illinois where
he earned a Ph.D. in Biophysics and Computational Biology. He is
Adjunct Professor at Biola University and author of the award-winning Darwin’s God: Evolution and the Problem of Evil. Hunter’s other books include Darwin’s Proof, and his newest book Science’s Blind Spot
(Baker/Brazos Press). Dr. Hunter's interest in the theory of evolution
involves the historical and theological, as well as scientific, aspects
of the theory. His website is http://www.darwins-god.blogspot.com/